Foucault's Pendulum

  • 210 Replies
  • 22579 Views
?

shadorhi

Foucault's Pendulum
« on: December 06, 2008, 11:28:58 AM »
How do you guys explain the Foucault's Pendulum which provfs the earth rotation?

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2008, 11:36:22 AM »
Conspiracy.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2008, 11:45:23 AM »
Tom says there's secret motors that cause the apparent shifting.
So what about the ones you can set up under a ladder?
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2008, 02:57:35 PM »
Unpowered pendulums are influenced not by the rotation of the earth, but by the gravitation of the rotating heavens, which rotate overhead at one rotation per 24 hours.

The large pendulums you would find in a museum running 24/7 are driven by electromagnets and are really just props. Real pendulums need to be reset every couple hours due to air friction.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 03:02:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2008, 04:08:33 PM »
Unpowered pendulums are influenced not by the rotation of the earth, but by the gravitation of the rotating heavens, which rotate overhead at one rotation per 24 hours.

Rotational gravitation has never been experimentally confirmed. It is pure speculation.

For someone who always demands hard data, you are very reluctant to give it. Can you cut the hypocrisy, please?

The large pendulums you would find in a museum running 24/7 are driven by electromagnets and are really just props. Real pendulums need to be reset every couple hours due to air friction.

Sure they're powered by electromagnets, but I don't see why those would impart a rotation onto the pendulum.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2008, 04:10:37 PM »
Quote
Rotational gravitation has never been experimentally confirmed. It is pure speculation.

Watch the pendulum as it swings. It will rotate in the direction of the stars overhead.

That's a direct cause and effect.

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2008, 04:14:58 PM »
Quote
Rotational gravitation has never been experimentally confirmed. It is pure speculation.

Watch the pendulum as it swings. It will rotate in the direction of the stars overhead.

That's a direct cause and effect.

Ah! The good old "correlation implies causality" fallacy. Still no experimental data then?

I'm thinking, one large rotating mass causes another (light) mass to begin to rotate, with control setups and error analysis. That sort of thing. Some proper science.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2008, 04:18:45 PM »
Quote
Ah! The good old "correlation implies causality" fallacy. Still no experimental data then?

Why would I need to provide experimental data for what one can already see for himself?

How about some experimental data for what no one experiences? Where's your evidence that the earth is moving in the Foucault Pendulum experiment? Anyone can watch and see that it's the pendulum that's moving while the earth remains still. Where's your evidence that the pendulum is still and its the earth which is moving?

The burden is on you to prove the unobservable. I don't need to prove the observable. Everyone can already see that it's the pendulum which is moving.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 04:21:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2008, 04:22:48 PM »
Quote
Ah! The good old "correlation implies causality" fallacy. Still no experimental data then?

Why would I need to provide experimental data for what one can already see for himself?

Simply by looking, one can't tell either way. Thus, experimental data is needed.

How about some experimental data for what no one experiences? Where's your evidence that the earth is moving in the Foucault Pendulum experiment. Anyone can watch and see that it's the pendulum that's moving. Where's your evidence that the pendulum is still and its the earth which is moving?

If you're theory was correct, anything that was suspended would be subject to this "rotational gravitational pull". Anyone can see that this doesn't happen (chandeliers, for example, don't slowly rotate). What we observe matches predictions made by RET, but not FET.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2008, 04:27:40 PM »
Quote
Simply by looking, one can't tell either way. Thus, experimental data is needed.

So where's your experimental data that the earth is moving and the pendulum remains still?

Everyone can already see that only the pendulum is moving in the experiment.

Still no experimental data?

Quote
If you're theory was correct, anything that was suspended would be subject to this "rotational gravitational pull". Anyone can see that this doesn't happen (chandeliers, for example, don't slowly rotate).

Chandeliers aren't in motion or free fall. Nor are chandeliers massive enough to be affected. If you've ever seen the weight of a Foucault Pendulum you would see that it's very massive and needs to be swinging in free fall for it to rotate.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 04:30:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2008, 04:30:36 PM »
Quote
Simply by looking, one can't tell either way. Thus, experimental data is needed.

So where's your experimental data that the earth is moving and the pendulum remains still?

Everyone can already see that only the pendulum is moving.

How can they see that? They see relative motion of the chandelier and the Earth. How can they tell which one is moving?

Quote
If you're theory was correct, anything that was suspended would be subject to this "rotational gravitational pull". Anyone can see that this doesn't happen (chandeliers, for example, don't slowly rotate).

Chandeliers aren't in motion or free fall. Nor are chandeliers massive enough to be affected.

If you've ever seen the weight of a Foucault Pendulum you would see that it's very massive and needs to be swinging in free fall for it to rotate.

Why does an object need to be in swinging to be affected? Why does it's mass matter?

Also, you wrongly state that a pendulum is in free fall. It is not, it is tethered.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2008, 04:49:51 PM »
Quote
How can they see that? They see relative motion of the chandelier and the Earth. How can they tell which one is moving?

Ask anyone to watch a focault pendulum for a while and they'll tell you that it's the pendulum which moves not the earth.

If you're trying to tell us that the pendulum is still and the earth is actually moving, the burden of proof is on you to prove your unobserved and unexperienced assertion.

So where's your proof?

Quote
Why does an object need to be in swinging to be affected? Why does it's mass matter?

Attach a spoon to a fishing line and put it into a swing. It won't rotate. The weight needs to be massive and it needs to be swinging in order to get the right effect.

The weight needs to be swinging in free fall because the force is very very slight, and its easier to move something in free fall than it is when its suspended motionless at 1g.

The weight also needs to be massive because of air friction. Massive bodies move with greater momentum through air friction. Small bodies like a spoon would quickly flutter out of control and slow to a halt.

Quote
Also, you wrongly state that a pendulum is in free fall. It is not, it is tethered.

When the pendulum is swinging back and fourth it's constantly going into freefall as it comes back down.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 05:03:03 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2008, 05:33:35 PM »
Quote
How can they see that? They see relative motion of the chandelier and the Earth. How can they tell which one is moving?

Ask anyone to watch a focault pendulum for a while and they'll tell you that it's the pendulum which moves not the earth.

No they won't, that's ridiculous. Almost everyone believes RET.

If you're trying to tell us that the pendulum is still and the earth is actually moving, the burden of proof is on you to prove your unobserved and unexperienced assertion.

So where's your proof?

Non-swinging objects do not rotate. Therefore, the swinging causes rotation, not some "rotational gravitation". Also, the Earth seems to bulge at the equator, implying it rotates.

Now, could you please supply some evidence that the pendulum is rotating, not the Earth? "It looks that way" is not an answer.

Quote
Why does an object need to be in swinging to be affected? Why does it's mass matter?

Attach a spoon to a fishing line and put it into a swing. It won't rotate. The weight needs to be massive and it needs to be swinging in order to get the right effect.

I think it would rotate, however it would quickly slow down due to air-reistance. This is why the mass needs to be large.

The weight needs to be swinging in free fall because the force is very very slight, and its easier to move something in free fall than it is when its suspended motionless at 1g.

As I've said, it is not in free fall.

Quote
Also, you wrongly state that a pendulum is in free fall. It is not, it is tethered.

When the pendulum is swinging back and fourth it's constantly going into freefall as it comes back down.

"Free fall" means that the body is moving only under the influence of gravity (or, in FET, has no forces acting on it whatsoever). A pendulum is always attached to a tether, and so is moving under the influence of gravity and tension in the string (or, in FET, under the influence of tension on the string). Thus, it is not in free fall.

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2008, 05:49:38 PM »
Quote
So, we either have a rotating planet and stationary pendulum , or a stationary planet and rotating pendulem. We have no kind of evidence for suggesting one over the other.

Now, the former requires nothing extra. It's simply an expected side effect of the model. The latter requires an extra force which is undetectable otherwise to be included. Which is the simpler model?

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2008, 05:53:06 PM »
Unpowered pendulums are influenced not by the rotation of the earth, but by the gravitation of the rotating heavens, which rotate overhead at one rotation per 24 hours.
The heavens are completely unexplainable in FET. For example, how the same stars are seen at opposite ends of the southern hemisphere, and how star-light can be seen down to the horizon through the 'thick atmosphere', but not an ounce of the sun's diffuse light can be seen.

Quote
How can they see that? They see relative motion of the chandelier and the Earth. How can they tell which one is moving?

Ask anyone to watch a focault pendulum for a while and they'll tell you that it's the pendulum which moves not the earth.
Since observation takes priority for you, this guy must be right, which means that your sun diameter calculations (and all theories based on it) are wrong, unless you can prove otherwise: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=b0486452a47573500fb7081378f3d07b&topic=19790.0

Quote
Why does an object need to be in swinging to be affected? Why does it's mass matter?

Attach a spoon to a fishing line and put it into a swing. It won't rotate. The weight needs to be massive and it needs to be swinging in order to get the right effect.

The weight needs to be swinging in free fall because the force is very very slight, and its easier to move something in free fall than it is when its suspended motionless at 1g.

The weight also needs to be massive because of air friction. Massive bodies move with greater momentum through air friction. Small bodies like a spoon would quickly flutter out of control and slow to a halt.
That's why you don't use a spoon, like an idiot: http://www.galeschools.com/sci_try/foucault.htm
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2008, 05:55:15 PM »
Quote
No they won't, that's ridiculous. Almost everyone believes RET.

I've been to museums. I clearly saw the pendulum moving. i can't say that I've ever seen the earth move.

If you're claiming something outside of human experience the burden is on you to prove it.

So, proof?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2008, 05:56:34 PM »
Now, the former requires nothing extra. It's simply an expected side effect of the model. The latter requires an extra force which is undetectable otherwise to be included. Which is the simpler model?

It's easy to detect the gravitation of the heavens. Just set up a Focault Pendulum or take a g-meter to extreme altitudes.

Quote
The heavens are completely unexplainable in FET. For example, how the same stars are seen at opposite ends of the southern hemisphere, and how star-light can be seen down to the horizon through the 'thick atmosphere', but not an ounce of the sun's diffuse light can be seen.

Where's your proof that the same stars can be seen on opposite sides of the southern hemisphere, and that stars can be seen on the horizon line? All I see are your unbacked claims.

If we look at star trails we'd see that stars actually do fade out into the atmosphere before hitting the horizon.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0512/startrails_gemini_big.jpg
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 06:01:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2008, 06:09:01 PM »
Now, the former requires nothing extra. It's simply an expected side effect of the model. The latter requires an extra force which is undetectable otherwise to be included. Which is the simpler model?

It's easy to detect the gravitation of the heavens. Just set up a Focault Pendulum or take a g-meter to extreme altitudes.

You are assuming that a Foucalt pendulum is moving and the Earth is stationary. You are assuming that the stars exhibit gravity but not the Earth. Why not show some proper evidence, not based on assumptions.

Like, for example, the Cavendish experiment. Or noticing that the Earth appears to bulge at the equator.

Quote
The heavens are completely unexplainable in FET. For example, how the same stars are seen at opposite ends of the southern hemisphere, and how star-light can be seen down to the horizon through the 'thick atmosphere', but not an ounce of the sun's diffuse light can be seen.

Where's your proof that the same stars can be seen on opposite sides of the southern hemisphere, and that stars can be seen on the horizon line? All I see are your unbacked claims.

This is such a fundamental claim that no scientist would ever bother writing a statement saying it was true. This is because if it wasn't, astronomers would notice. Very. Quickly.

If we look at star trails we'd see that stars actually do fade out into the atmosphere before hitting the horizon.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0512/startrails_gemini_big.jpg

Not always:



Notice the bright star that reaches the water-line.


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2008, 06:15:02 PM »
Quote
You are assuming that a Foucalt pendulum is moving and the Earth is stationary. You are assuming that the stars exhibit gravity but not the Earth. Why not show some proper evidence, not based on assumptions.

Like, for example, the Cavendish experiment. Or noticing that the Earth appears to bulge at the equator.

Firstly, the validity of the Cavendish Experiment is in contention.

Secondly, where did you get your data that the earth bulges at the equator? Another assumption?

Quote
This is such a fundamental claim that no scientist would ever bother writing a statement saying it was true. This is because if it wasn't, astronomers would notice. Very. Quickly.

So you're saying that you have no evidence, but we should  go ahead and believe it based on blind faith alone?

Thanks for the confirmation. I knew you guys had no evidence for your claims and that RET was a religion.

Don't you realize how stupid and close minded it makes you look when you make a claim and then refuse to provide evidence, saying only "it's ridiculous to believe otherwise"?

Quote
Not always:

http://www.mreclipse.com/Astrophoto/SSSP/SS97/97SS63w.JPG

Notice the bright star that reaches the water-line.

Firstly how do we know that's a star rather than a planet or any other bright celestial body?

Secondly, we can still see that the majority of stars fade out into nothingness as they approach the horizon line.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 06:20:23 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2008, 06:18:43 PM »
Quote
The heavens are completely unexplainable in FET. For example, how the same stars are seen at opposite ends of the southern hemisphere, and how star-light can be seen down to the horizon through the 'thick atmosphere', but not an ounce of the sun's diffuse light can be seen.

Where's your proof that the same stars can be seen on opposite sides of the southern hemisphere, and that stars can be seen on the horizon line? All I see are your unbacked claims.
Go to a beach at night. Where's your proof of heavenly gravitation?


Secondly, we can still see that the majority of stars fade out into nothingness as they approach the horizon line.
That would be, as you claim, due to the thickness of the atmosphere. However, your theory does not explain why those stars can shine through the atmosphere clearly, but not an ounce of the sun's diffuse light is visible.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2008, 06:27:03 PM »
Quote
You are assuming that a Foucalt pendulum is moving and the Earth is stationary. You are assuming that the stars exhibit gravity but not the Earth. Why not show some proper evidence, not based on assumptions.

Like, for example, the Cavendish experiment. Or noticing that the Earth appears to bulge at the equator.

Firstly, the Cavendish Experiment is in contention.

I seem to remember finding several flaws in that link. Can't remember where, just get off your lazy ass and do a search.

Secondly, where did you get your data that the earth bulges at the equator? Another assumption?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth, see citations.

Quote
This is such a fundamental claim that no scientist would ever bother writing a statement saying it was true. This is because if it wasn't, astronomers would notice. Very. Quickly.

So you're saying that you have no evidence, but we should  go ahead and believe it based on blind faith alone?

Thanks for the confirmation. I knew you guys had no evidence for your claims and that RET was a religion.

Don't you realize how stupid and close minded it makes you look when you make a claim and then refuse to provide evidence, saying only "it's ridiculous to believe otherwise"?

I suggest you personally ask a professional astronomer. Once you have done that, inform me of his/her answer. If you started asking the right people, you might get better answers. I don't know all of science (yet).

Quote
Not always:

http://www.mreclipse.com/Astrophoto/SSSP/SS97/97SS63w.JPG

Notice the bright star that reaches the water-line.

Firstly how do we know that's a star rather than a planet or any other bright celestial body?

Secondly, we can still see that the majority of stars fade out into nothingness as they approach the horizon line.

Why does it make a difference if it's a star, planet, or other celestial body? The point is, these (relatively dim) objects can be seen through atmospheric haze, but the sun cannot.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2008, 06:38:05 PM »
Quote
Go to a beach at night. Where's your proof of heavenly gravitation?

I've been to beaches at night. I don't remember seeing any Southern Hemisphere stars.

Quote
That would be, as you claim, due to the thickness of the atmosphere. However, your theory does not explain why those stars can shine through the atmosphere clearly, but not an ounce of the sun's diffuse light is visible.

What does the atmosphere have to do with the setting of the sun again?

Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth, see citations.

So no proof, then?

Thought so.

Quote
I suggest you personally ask a professional astronomer.

Why should I need to ask a professional astronomer when you guys seem to know all the answers?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 06:42:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2008, 06:46:31 PM »
Quote
I suggest you personally ask a professional astronomer.

Why should I need to ask a professional astronomer when you guys seem to know all the answers?

I don't, I just said I don't. If anyine else here can offer a good explanation, I'd love to here it, but I trust that astronomers know what they're doing. If that isn't enough evidence for you, ask them yourself.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2008, 06:51:52 PM »
Quote
I don't, I just said I don't. If anyine else here can offer a good explanation, I'd love to here it, but I trust that astronomers know what they're doing. If that isn't enough evidence for you, ask them yourself.

So you don't have any explanations, proof, or evidence for us, but we should go off bothering other people to come up with your missing evidence?

Right.  ::)

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2008, 06:56:48 PM »
Quote
I don't, I just said I don't. If anyine else here can offer a good explanation, I'd love to here it, but I trust that astronomers know what they're doing. If that isn't enough evidence for you, ask them yourself.

So you don't have any explanations, proof, or evidence for us, but we should go off bothering other people to come up with your missing evidence?

Right.  ::)

Sure. So, do you have any evidence for me?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2008, 06:57:44 PM »
Sure. So, do you have any evidence for me?

Check out the literature in my signature link.

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2008, 07:09:17 PM »
Sure. So, do you have any evidence for me?

Check out the literature in my signature link.

I see no proper scientific literature.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 07:14:31 PM by ghazwozza »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2008, 07:11:28 PM »
Looks like I have more literature and compiled studies than you.

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2008, 07:14:51 PM »
Looks like I have more literature and compiled studies than you.

Whoops, didn't mean to post that. Fix'd.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2008, 07:24:46 PM »
So still no evidence other than "go ask someone else", then?