Foucault Pendulum
« on: April 30, 2018, 04:56:42 PM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

I checked that chapter of EnaG, and it completely passes over the fact that the plane of vibration will consistently precess with a period predicted as the rotational period divided by the sine of the latitude of the pendulum.

In fact, I'll do this experiment myself (once I'm home), and invite people at other latitudes to do the same: this is practically zero cost, since you only need a weight and a piece of string.

Since I'm about 10 km south of the 45th parallel, the period should be 33.9 hours, or one day, nine hours, and 54 minutes. It will precess a quarter circle in about 8 hours and 28 minutes.
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Foucault Pendulum
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2018, 05:44:47 AM »
I would love to take part, but my ship is never steady enough.
Maybe when i get back homie in june i can try.

I will be in the UK, i will check but i think i will be in 51N

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

JohnAdams1145

Re: Foucault Pendulum
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2018, 06:26:06 AM »
You forgot to read the part below, which is a complete misunderstanding of Mach's principle. Alas, people who can't do basic F=ma and geometry also claim to understand Mach's principle.

No experiment you do will discredit the celestial gravitation idea, because it is defined to be perfectly aligned with reality.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Foucault Pendulum
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2018, 06:58:21 AM »
You forgot to read the part below, which is a complete misunderstanding of Mach's principle. Alas, people who can't do basic F=ma and geometry also claim to understand Mach's principle.

No experiment you do will discredit the celestial gravitation idea, because it is defined to be perfectly aligned with reality.

Doh.......

There i go again, forgetting that very FE understanding of “any experiment that disagrees with FE truth is fake and to be rejected”
Very Zetetic attitude i am sure.

The more i read and the more i find out about TFES leads me to the understanding that there is NO evidence that will be accepted, as there are always some silly arguments like “no one knows the distance from New York to Paris” or “no one knows the time of sunrise or sunset”!

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Foucault Pendulum
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2018, 09:39:21 AM »
(...)
No experiment you do will discredit the celestial gravitation idea, because it is defined to be perfectly aligned with reality.

The CG cannot explain the Eötvös effect. So, either the CG theory is wrong or it doesn't explain every gravimetric abnormality (in which case the FES needs to devise a new theory).
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

Re: Foucault Pendulum
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2018, 12:56:51 PM »
In other topic I asked of fellow FE-ers could go and have look. There are 150 Foucault pendulum in U.S. so always one near maybe. Would be great to get empirical data to add to theory. After all our knowledge is gained by what we see and observe.

This one in California


Haven't heard, but some might have gone and taken look. Would be great if they reported back here.
As the saying goes "The internet belongs to the lunatics in their walled gardens" - Xiang Yu

I see a Flat Earth. And I can't imagine anything else.

I got work to do. 0.00018% of Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Pls help

JohnAdams1145

Re: Foucault Pendulum
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2018, 04:24:47 AM »
(...)
No experiment you do will discredit the celestial gravitation idea, because it is defined to be perfectly aligned with reality.

The CG cannot explain the Eötvös effect. So, either the CG theory is wrong or it doesn't explain every gravimetric abnormality (in which case the FES needs to devise a new theory).

Oh yes it can. Celestial gravitation affects objects moving at different velocities differently. Where's the proof? Well, that's being worked on. Seems like that question's been asked before... Oh yeah.

There's a thread showing that the stars are moving very quickly away from us through Doppler shifting of their spectra, particularly atomic absorption spectra. Tom proceeded to use some big fancy words that dealt with molecular absorption spectra, notwithstanding the fact that molecules are probably all decomposed in a star. This proves that the stars are far away. But of course we can just assert that's not the case and/or assert that CG reaches that far.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Foucault Pendulum
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2018, 11:52:25 AM »
Of course you can introduce this ominous celestial gravitation as something that just by definition acts in way that it fits to all observations. The question is only how far you can go with this attempt? If you read through the explanations of this celestial gravitation it seems to be a quite selective force. It always jumps in if with the denial of ordinary gravitation you approach some problem. On A it acts in that way, while on B it acts not or differently from A.

But that's not the way how the modern way of mechanical theory works. We do not have a law for the precision of the earth and another one for the precision of toy gyroscope kids are playing with. We only have one law for the spinning of mass. And these laws are universal also in a much broader sense. They are the same at any time, at any place and in any direction, and invariant upon scaling, you make no assumption about that during their derivation. I can only encourage everyone to read through a book on mechanical theory to see how to derive so very different things as the Kepler laws, the Euler equations or the equations that describe the motion of a pendulum in a very coherent way from the same starting point.   

Compared to this all this flat earth stuff is a patchwork of ideas, sometime obviously even contradicting each other.