Foucault’s Pendulum is one such experiment that is said to be an outstanding proof of the Earth in rotation. Examining this idea in detail it becomes impossible for such a conclusion to be had from such a pendulum. We will examine the details under the microscope of Fringe science view points to determine the real facts behind Foucault’s Pendulum. All scientific experiments must run through the tests of P.A.I.N. which will either make or brake the end conclusions that we have been given of any experiment.
First let us examine claims of the Pendulum from wikipedia.
Claim #1; The experimental apparatus consists of a tall pendulum free to swing in any vertical plane.
“Free to swing in any vertical plane.” is the claim we will be examining. With a little google search we are able to find many links that show an electromagnetic drive is used in museums to act upon the pendulum.   . It appears that in modern situations the platform the bob is swinging over has an electromagnetic ring that is considered a drive. This electromagnetic drive is usually calibrated to help steer the pendulum in the motion that is intended by the pendulum’s desideratum.
Additionally, the construction of the Pendulum includes a Charron ring. A charron ring is the stabalization system or dampener used at the top of the pendulum’s construction. While the cable attached to the bob moves in it’s oscillation, the cable contacts the Charron ring. This forces the cable to move on one plane. The Charron ring also is used to prevent elliptical movement. Since the cable comes briefly into contact with the Charron Ring in each period, the oscillation plane no longer oscillates in relation to the ground during that period. In consequence, the rotation of the oscillation plane “slows down” and a complete turn takes slightly longer than expected.
What we find here is a misrepresented claim of free movement. It is readily seen that the slowed motion of the Pendulum by the Charron ring dampener necessitates the electromagnetic drive to continue to move the Pendulum. The contacts with the Charron ring creates a force and further the electromagnetic drive creates a force. These forces alone remove “free movement” from being a reliable claim for this experiment.
Conclusion on claim #1; FAIL.
Though, the Pendulum’s may vary in design, they are all driven, dampened and tuned. If not tuned the pendulum will lose it’s pattern and it’s visible progression. We have just eliminated the idea that pendulums are in free motion.
Claim #2; The actual plane of swing appears to rotate relative to the Earth.
The first thing about such a claim is that it is not a statement of fact. It appears to do as they say it does. Again, a desideratum. The construction of the anchor at the top of a Foucault Pendulum makes use of an anchor point that allows rotation. Where as other pendulums use a back and forth motion that does not allow rotation to occur at all. Consider Pendulum clocks as an example of a non-rotating anchor point. The Pendulum is allowed to rotate in a complete circle over a period of time. Besides these facts of construction, No one has ever seen the Earth rotate by watching a Pendulum swing.
Conclusion of claim #2; FAIL
Claim #3; At the equator the Foucault pendulum will be at a fixed plane of back and forth motion not showing any gradual sideways rotation that is found at other locations around the Earth.
Here is where we look into the Foucault’s sine law. The Equator brings a peculiar division of 0 to the equation. “For a given longitude the surface velocity varies from 1 EVU at the equator to zero at the pole even though the angular velocities are all the same.”  At the equator the pendulum axis is perpendicular to the Earth’s axis and the sine of 0° = 0. ” The time to observe a full rotation is equal to one day at the North Pole with the time increasing with decreasing latitude and not observable at the Equator (infinite length of time).”
So, zero according to the Foucault’s sine law is the equivalent of meaning infinity. That way in Ecuador it has even been described as a setting that could be fit for some actualization of “infinity” the infinite fixed plane of perpetual horizontal motion. There is zero value in the equation at the equator, yet this zero has been given infinity as a value. This is basic math that has now become a farce. Anything divisible by, or multiplied by zero is zero.
Conclusion of claim #3; FAIL
Division by zero is not an infinitesimal sign of infinity. There for division by zero is meaningless and so is Foucault Pendulum at the equator.
Problem; Allais effect
After a good few years of the establishment that Foucault Pendulums prove Earth’s motion there was an anomalous observation called the Allais effect. The Foucault Pendulum and what it is shown to prove are now under P.A.I.N.. P.A.I.N. is an acronym meaning Paradox, Anomaly, Inconsistency or Nonsense. If any part of P.A.I.N. is present a conclusion or theory must be reworked or thrown out as it is incorrect.
The Allais effect refers to the anomalous behavior of pendulums or gravimeters, which is sometimes observed during a solar eclipse. What was discovered is that the Foucault Pendulums swing shifts in degrees of movement when under the influence of the Solar eclipse. The only response to this phenomena is After analysis of Foucault pendulum data during the solar eclipse of July 11, 1991, L. Savrov suggested that the “pendulum responded to the remanent shock wave at the maximum of the total eclipse phase”. Though Maurice Allais’s explanation for another anomaly (the lunisolar periodicity in variations of the azimuth of a pendulum) is that space evinces certain anisotrophic characteristics, which he ascribes to motion through an aether which is partially entrained by planetary bodies. Maurice Allais has a better explanation, which today sits on the fringe of science. What does residual shock actually mean for the pendulum according to L. Savrov? Further L.Savrov is concluding by his own regards that the Pendulum is not influenced by a moving Earth alone or by multiple measures. L. Savrov has debunked the conclusion of the intent of the Foucault Pendulum.
Thoughts and Considerations;
If it is mathematically meaningless and obtuse at the equator, in terms of establishing any rotation of the Earth, then it is meaningless in those terms everywhere else. If Foucault Pendulum’s are not electromagnetically pushed and forced to keep a momentum or circular movement then of course natural laws of correct science would put the Pendulum at rest and remain at rest. Isaac Newton’s law is;
|Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it|
Under the uniform motion stated from the first law (above), we run into the problem with the pendulum as there is a presence and influence of “gravity” that changes in motion must be imposed against the tendency of an object to retain its state of motion. In the absence of net forces, a moving object tends to move along a straight line path indefinitely. Clear contradictions in Foucault Pendulum “science”.
Truly interesting is that the modern scientific establishment would have us believing that the Foucault Pendulum can find a fixed plane of oscillation where we (all people) can not even recognize the rotation or velocity in the first place.
Question; If the Earth were truly moving, how would Foucault’s pendulum find a fixed-point of suspension, of absolute rest, on a moving Earth anyway, to detect the cosmic alignment of the so-called fixed-plane of oscillation?
We are observing when looking at the Foucault Pendulum a device that is not separate from the ground it is built upon. The top most part of the Pendulum is fixed to the construction of the building it is housed in, which is also built upon the Earth. Somehow the public is to believe that by viewing a moving Pendulum that is being forced to maintain its motion is showing the Earth is actually being seen to move. Foucault himself made faulty claims trying to remove this truth by saying the pendulum itself is not fixed to anything and is itself part of “absolute space”.
Question; If the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same fixed-plane, while the Earth beneath it and the roof above it rotate, what force could be holding the plane of oscillation in place?
There is nothing actually stationary at the premise of this experiment or it’s conclusion of what it is supposed to conclude. What is noticed time and time again is that images of how such experiments work actually contradict themselves. In this, Foucault Pendulums are usually shown at the poles and mathematically described with imagined motion from such locations.
Reader, Are you to believe a moving Earth based on Foucault Pendulums? You are to believe that the Pendulum itself is affixed to a motionless point in absolute space where it sways back and forth over a moving Earth. You have been brought into a propaganda experiment and educated against your own intellect. The hoax of proving motion of the Earth is not in existence. Though, the Foucault Pendulums hang in many locations around the Earth, you are considered by the ones responsible for perpetuating this claim of proof of Earth’s motion, to be one who will never truly understand what is going on with the Pendulums anyway. The public has been shown a dog and pony show, where seeing is believing and thinking is insignificant in value.
Some Quotes to consider;
“Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as “proofs” of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the geocentric model. – Malcolm Bowden
“This pendulum, modern scientists tell us, affords a visible proof that we are living on a whirling globe, which, according to a ‘work on science’ now before me, is spinning upon its so-called axis at the rate of over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator; and, in addition to other motions, is rushing on an everlasting tour round the sun (the diameter of which is said to be 813,000 miles, and its weight 354,936 times greater than the earth from which it is said to be about 93,000,000 miles distant,) at the rate of over 1,000 miles per minute. Now to prove that the earth really has these motions a pendulum is suspended at the show; the showman sets motion, and bids the gaping world of thoughtless men and women to ‘behold a proof’ that we are living on a whirling globe which is rushing away through space!” -Lady Blount, “The Romance of Science”
“Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its ‘axis,’ by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath – asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the ‘rotation’ theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory.” -William Carpenter
“First, when a pendulum, constructed according to the plan of M. Foucault, is allowed to vibrate, its plane of vibration is often variable – not always. The variation when it does occur, is not uniform – is not always the same in the same place; nor always the same either in its rate or velocity, or in its direction. It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant cannot be used in favor of or against any given proposition. It therefore is not evidence and proves nothing! Secondly, if the plane of vibration is observed to change, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the Earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the Earth which moves underneath the pendulum, and not the pendulum which moves over the Earth? What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other? Thirdly, why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its possible influence upon the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored that a ‘ball-and-socket’ joint is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other?” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham