Not on My Watch!

A Cautionary Tale

If You Think The Biggest Science Hoaxes Have All Been Revealed, Think Again

“Foucault’s Pendulum” is the Result of an Intellectual Virus

And That Virus Will Likely Never Be Treated

Author: Charles N Gifford 1350 E Grand

Springfield, MO 65804 September 21, 2013

1. Introduction

I have been enthusiastically intrigued for many years by “Foucault’s Pendulum”, and its

discoverer, Leon Foucault, often referred to as the Father of Modern Physics. His

Pendulum is always high on lists of the Most Significant Discoveries in the History of

Science.

Watching a large scale Foucault Pendulum in action gives us the “goose bumps”. It is

like watching the ”Finger of the Universe” writing out some “Universal Truth”. That’s

how it hit me, anyway, at the Smithsonian many years ago. But getting my mind around

the explanation posted on the nearby wall took months, not minutes. It began with

something like, ”Imagine the conditions directly over one of Earth’s Poles…”

The pendulum’s unique “first impression” had led me to expect an equally “pure”

explanation. Instead, the rationale seemed a bit messy and thin-- unfulfilling.

I wanted resonance—serious, now- and- forever, loud- and- clear RESONANCE.

2. Rationale Seemed Incomplete.

I wondered: What had made it all come together and resonate for Foucault? What was

his good, solid starting point, and how did he get from there to the North Pole and back

from there to Paris? The most plausible “third-person” accounts identify “the solid

starting point” (what I would call “Stepping Stone 1”) as being a highly flexible long

metal rod in a lathe, in the basement of Foucault’s residence in Paris. (“Stepping Stone

1A” was apparently a pendulum in his drill press, in that same basement, which would

have been analogous to the rod in lathe, but more in tune with the upright world we are

used to.) Here’s an example:

The Foucault Pendulum was invented by accident.

….. This set Leon Foucault thinking. He set up a small pendulum in his drill

press. He set the pendulum oscillating, and then started the drill press. Once

again, the pendulum kept swinging in its original plane, and ignored the fact that

its mounting point was rotating.1

3. The Mysterious Disappearance of the Second Stone.

But where in the world was Foucault’s “Stepping-stone 2”? I could find no trace of it.

That would surely have contained / explained the connection between that (actual) drill-

press- pendulum and a bigger theoretical pendulum built smack-dab on top of the North

Pole. How could Foucault –not to mention the learned men of the Academie de Sciences

(to whom he submitted his final pendulum project for approval)-- have not insisted on

knowing:

“Does a man-made turntable actually represent Earth’s surface at the Poles?”

4. Time to Think Outside the Box

I was in a quandary. My attitude had gradually changed from dewy-eyed naive idol-

worship to frustration and finally to exasperation. The time had come for me to either

just forget it—or go completely “outside the box”-- to wipe the board clean, use the

accepted Pendulum rationale as a framework, and try my own hand at placing a “solid

1 Kate Genz, “Foucault’s Pendulum”, Prezi, www.prezi.com/3mnr84mxugaw/foucaults-

pendulum/ 107.20.166.220

stepping stone” between a small common drill-press (turntable)-pendulum in a Paris

basement and a big imaginary pendulum over the frozen solid ground of the North Pole.

A pendulum- on- turntable, as they say, “Isn’t rocket science”. I had built my own

model (using a lazy- Susan) a few years ago. I dug it out and gave it a thorough re-

examination, with an eye to the basic Physics of why the pendulum bob’s swing azimuth

seems unaffected by the turntable’s rotation. Thus began my own attempt to put together

a sensible comparison of turntables vs. Earth –as frames of reference for pendulum bobs.

(I learned that it flows more nicely to begin with Earth, so that’s the order I’ll use here.)

5. Earth 101

5 a Earth is a Planet.

At their 2006 meeting the International Astronomical Union adopted:

RESOLUTION 5A

The IAU therefore resolves ……. :

(1) A “planet” is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has

sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it

assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has

cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.2

2International Astronomical Union-IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU

Resolution votes- http://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf

5 b: Questioning the Virtue of Being Vague

That led me to re-consider Earth’s notorious “polar flattening” and “Equatorial Bulge”,

often cited as objective support for Modern Physics’ “official vagueness” about Earth’s

spherical shape. I knew that Serious Physicists consider it dreadfully naïve to use, when

describing Earth, terms like “spherical”, “round” or “symmetrical”-- without some

“vague-i-fier” like “nearly” or “almost” or “intuitively”. But if Earth’s diameters from

Pole- to-pole and Equator- to- Equator only differ by about 25 or 30 miles, put in

perspective that would be about 30 / 8,000ths (0.00375/ 1).

Press releases from the ongoing Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation

Explorer (GOCE) satellite project claim to have documented “substantial” deviations

(from the geoid) in global sea-level projections based on state-of-the-art

gradiometry, as reported on Scientific American’s blog :

“The deviations of the geoid from the simplified, ellipsoidal model

of the Earth are substantial: they range from 100 meters below…to 80 meters

above…3

If Earth’s radius is 6,371km, and the gradiometric deviation is a maximum 180 meters, as

a fraction that is .00002825302 / 1 That may be “substantial” to Ocean Circulation

specialists, but to everybody else it would not. The Earth we see in pictures from space

looks like a perfect sphere. If the biggest confirmed variance is .00002825302 / 1,

calling that “nearly spherical” instead of simply “spherical” seems a little snide

(insinuating a serious flaw).

3 Davide Castelvecchi “The Geoid: Why a map of Earth’s gravity yields a potato-shaped

planet” scientificamerican.com, 04/01/ 2011

6. The Salience of the Spherical Form of Planet Earth

It would seem more dishonest to call Earth’s form “nearly spherical” than to simply call

it “spherical”, except in a context where any variations from an ideal sphere are plainly

relevant. If Earth is “spherical”, we can deduce much about the gravity process which

formed her from the basic geometry of spheres (all surface points having a common

radius from a common center). Accordingly, if an ocean covers a big part of the Earth,

the top surface of that entire ocean will be at a uniform radius from Earth’s center of

mass, and every particle of that “surface level” will feel a uniform attraction toward that

center,

and all of those particles will, because of that downward attraction, tend to press

horizontally with equal force against their fellow water particles. This would create

uniformity of “surface tension’ and “sea level”.

Why not simply acknowledge that:

Earthly (matter) X (gravity) = Equilibrium = Earth’s spherical form?

And that: “Sea level”, as a globally distributed “layer” of Earth’s gravitational sphere of

influence, is a great illustration of that?

And that: Gravity “works” like a gazillion big rubber bands which, millennium after

millennium, keep on trying to bring everything as close as possible to the center?

6. a.: Salient Earth Point: Earth’s gravity tends to “herd” moving objects along

geodesic lines.

If: the gravitational attraction between any single Earthly particle and (the remainder

of) Earth constantly works as if its “purpose” were to move every single particle as near

as possible to Earth’s center,

and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, then

the attractive force between the center and any particle must work along a straight line.

Thus as objects are moved around in Earth’s (solid) surface level (by forces other than

gravity) their motion would naturally (tend to) follow a straight (geodesic) course

(which could just as accurately be said to be a “spherical” course)

6. b.: Salient Earth Point: Gravity works to becalm everything into a state of rest.

Earth’s gravity system is a perpetual, timeless process, generating no “work product”

which the human mind can quantify. Movement is a disruptive finite event permitted to

take place within (vs.) the infinite gravity system, according to the system’s rules. The

magnitude of the motion / disruption event is limited by the amount of energy “spent” on

it, and the “work” equivalent of each disruption event, including its duration, is

measurable.

Logically, the “mission statement goal” of Earth’s gravity must be to eventually have all

Earthly matter corralled in a state of rest-- in gravity-compacted, center-oriented spherical

layers determined by relative density. Therefore the arrangement of matter we see

around us today is not a completed event, but rather a “work in progress”. Since Earth’s

center of mass is, by definition, infinitely smaller than the mass itself, individual

particles systematically moving toward center will naturally become constricted by the

mass of all of the other particles similarly trying to move into the same space. This is

why planets grow up to be spheres, not shapeless lumps, and explains why

gravity “sees” all motion as “transitory” / “fractious” / “disturbing”.

6. c.: Salient Earth Point: Earthly Orbit and Surface Equilibrium are wholly

compatible.

The essence of Earth is her gravitational matter management system, which happens to be

in annual solar orbit (which has the primary aspect of circling the Sun and the secondary

aspect of “daily” rotation). Imagine a slow-motion animation of Earth disintegrating as if

from a huge explosion out from her center, with all of her exploding “bits and pieces”

continuing to make a big circle around the Sun while making a little circle around the

point that used to be their solid center. Now, stop the animation , then run it backwards,

so that all the circling, rotating bits and pieces “go back together”, like billions of center-

seeking-missiles, which continue their Sun-circling and auto-rotation during and after the

process of coming back to order in a spherical formation. The rotation aspect will be as

timeless and natural to each particle as its materiality, and the rotation aspect will in turn

be as natural to the group as to the individual. Consider that it is Earth’s gravitational

sphere of matter management that is the entity which is in a state of daily auto-rotation.

It might help us get our little human minds “around” this if we would officially change

our home planet’s name to “Mother Orbiting- Rotating- in- Equilibrium Sphere of

Managed Matter”. It would have helped Leon Foucault, no doubt.

6. d.: Salient Earth Point: If Creating Stillness is Natural , Then Disruption is Not .

We can’t be two places, or two people, at the same time. Likewise, every Earthly object

has one certain molecular structure and Earthly gravity has one certain natural tendency.

Earth’s spherical form is evidence that gravity produces (fosters) stillness, but only

tolerates motion (disturbance). So Gravity must, by its very nature, resist all

disturbance, as an antibody resists disease.

Ergo: Earth’s surface is (essentially) an inertial frame of reference.

6. e.: Salient Earth Point: Simple disruption does not lessen gravity’s control.

Too often, our feeble human minds tend to think of Earth’s gravitational sphere of

influence as ending at about rooftop level of our buildings. We wax poetic thinking

about birds and airplanes as examples of things in motion “up above the Earth”. That’s

primitive, provincial thinking. Motion is the key to separation from Earth’s gravitational

sphere of influence-- but birds and jet planes-- and even ICBM’s-- don’t even come close

to reaching separation speed.

4

4 David Stern, “Cruising through the Solar System”, Section 34, Orbits in Space, From

Stargazers to Starships, 2004

Accordingly: The Natural local tendencies of Earth’s gravity vs. individual particles are

unaffected by simple (low velocity) particle movement. Anything “Earthly” has

“weight”, which is how we humans experience the “gravitational tension” created when

other matter “brakes” our progress down toward Earth’s center. So all things “moving

around in Earth’s surface level” (at less than orbit velocity) continue to experience

gravitational tension.

Immediately below is my own graphic of these main attributes of working gravity:

Earth’s gravitational area of management / influence is shaped like a sphere, (which

extends well above “sea level”) and equally includes particles in their Natural (perpetual)

“state of rest” and in their disrupted (temporary) “state of motion”. I cannot imagine any

way the planetary gravity system could possibly be improved. The more I learn about

this system, the more amazing I find it. It is beyond perfection. My vocabulary cannot

begin to do it justice.

5 f: Salient Earth Point: Nicholas Copernicus was way ahead of us.

The mind that brought us the correct basic picture of our Solar System also tried to help

us appreciate the natural symmetry of Earth’s simultaneous solar orbit and local

equilibrium.

By 1543, Nicholas Copernicus had figured this all out, and he tried to help the world put

it all in perspective in De Revolutionibus5. He appreciated the fact that Earth’s spherical

form is the best evidence that Earth’s rotation does not interfere with the natural

equilibrium of her matter. If the terminology had been in vogue back then, he would

have declared Earth’s surface to be “an inertial frame of reference”. (Please see the

Appendix for my notes on Copernicus titled, “Hey, what took you guys so long?”)

So, there you have my personal (i,e.: non-sanctioned) recap of the “starter” principles of

Earthly gravity and motion, which can be accurately encapsulated:

in the phrase, “Gravity works Spherically”

and in the term “Earth’s Surface= An Inertial frame of Reference”.

5 Edward Rosen, On the Revolutions: Nicholas Copernicus’ Complete Works, Translation

and Commentary, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978

6 Turntables 101

Let’s study Foucault’s own words to introduce this section. I believe the clearest picture

we can get of Foucault’s own perceptions of the lessons to be learned from a pendulum-

on-turntable is obtained by “reading between the lines” of the paper by which he “made

his case” to the distinguished members of the Academie de Sciences, Paris.

…I will suppose the observer to have established a pendulum at the pole.

…and the solid masses which support (this point of suspension) do not participate

in the diurnal movement…

The…pendulum is drawn aside…and abandoned…to …gravity…thus …the

inertia of the mass gives an invariable position in space ( …the immobility of the

plane of oscillation…clearly determined…)6

6 Leon Foucault, Recueil des Travaux Scientifiques de Leon Foucault, page xii, Paris,

Publie par Madame veuve Foucault sa mere, 1878

(Please see Appendix for information on French- to- English translation):

Here’s a graphic aid for “tracking” what seemed to Foucault a “logical thread”:

In other words, Foucault “connected” his basement turntable-pendulum to

a theoretical North Pole Pendulum and back to a real (huge) Earth-mounted pendulum in

Paris merely by inventing an axiom. That Axiom says: ‘Swing azimuths of pendulum

bobs are unaffected by rotation of their support structures.’ Wow! And to think that not

one member of the Academie de Sciences had the wits and /or the courage to stand up

and protest! (For me that thought evokes visions of The Emperor’s New Clothes.)

\

6 a Salient Turntable Point One

I submit, as an alternative to Foucault’s interpretation, the two following graphics to

illustrate what I consider to be a more rational “reading” of pendulum bob vs. turntable

behavior. Fig 2 illustrates that the factor of (”rigidity of contact” between turntable and

“comparison object”) may range from total to none.

Fig. 2a illustrates the special relationship between a turntable and a mechanically

shielded (segmented) component (pendulum bob). of a “turntable rider” (pendulum

apparatus).

7 b: Salient Turntable Point Two: Because Earth is a Planet-- and a turntable is just a

tiny speck of a planet-- as “frames of reference” they are wholly dissimilar.

Earth’s gravity is a management system by means of which Earthly matter constitutes a

planet ( whose natural motions cause no disruption of its parts, whose internal disruptions

tend to follow geodesic lines, and are naturally “gravity-cured” toward states of rest.

7 c: Salient Turntable Point Three: The idea of the swing azimuth of a pendulum’s bob

being capable of establishing an invariable Earth- vs.- Cosmos- Reference-Mark is

Inane.

That concept (the invariable plane of oscillation) is the cornerstone of the Foucault

Pendulum “rationale”. It is related (in a decidedly tortured way) to the deduction that the

Natural direction of horizontal Earth-surface motion would be along a geodesic line

(absent design, construction and operation imperfections, weather, terrain, aerodynamics,

etc.). That’s where any connection to reality disappears.

ONLY IF you are prepared to suppose that:

1) the capability of a pendulum-on-turntable to let you segment the directions of two

different man-made forces within the same man-made machine …

equates to the

“Principle” that –if equipped with a freely swiveling pivot—the swing azimuth of the bob

of an Earth-mounted pendulum is likewise segmented from the sphere of influence of

Earth’s gravity, and

2) that Foucault’s big pendulum had previously been scientifically

“Proven” to be mechanically capable of holding, indefinitely, to its original launch

azimuth…

3) could you confidently predict that the swing azimuth of a big pendulum “should not

veer off its true course”.

With all of those provisos, if it did (veer), that would indeed be a singular event-- an

anomaly-- which would call for careful investigation by the Great Minds of Science.

7 c 1) But no part of a big pendulum moves at orbit velocity (the only means of

separating or segmenting an object from Earthly gravity) and

7 c 2) No pendulum in history, big or little, has ever been proven to be capable of

vibrating : freely, without bias in all directions, while at the same time

holding, over time, to any particular swing azimuth. Anyone who has logged any hands-

on time trying to create his own “Foucault Pendulum” experience knows full well that –if

the bob of a freely-swiveling pendulum can be said to have a “natural behavior” it is to

act out. Denying that the pendulum bob veers is like pretending that “a car doesn’t

travel—it only appears to travel, while the highway in reality rushes forward to meet it--

and then just as magically disappears in the rear view mirror.”

Even if they had never heard of gravity or spherical planets, the learned men of the

Academie de Sciences ought to have found Foucault’s orchestrated disconnect from the

reality of the veering of pendulum bobs enough to send them running from the room in

panic. The same goes for every man, woman, boy or girl who has tried to replicate the

“Foucault Pendulum Experiment” since. Instead, when they all find that their

bobs want to veer this way and wobble that way, they blame their bobs &/or themselves.

After they learn a few tricks for “managing” the veering, but still can’t “manage”

Foucault-level accuracy, they continue to blame their own equipment, physical and

mental. The only exception I have found is Prof. A.C. Longden , who obviously

invested hundreds of hours painstakingly recording actual observations of actual

pendulum bob oscillations in his lab at Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois.

The stated motivation for this extreme diligence was to critique his own mechanical

engineering skills. He assumed that if the bob of Foucault’s pendulum veered according

to Paris’ latitude, his own bob should veer according to Galesburg’s latitude. Not only

did it fail to do so “right out of the box”, but it continued to “fail” to achieve any real

accuracy, no matter how he tinkered with his equipment.

Sadly, Longden’s article seems to have caused not so much as the faintest whiff of a hint

of a ruffle of a stir in the chambers of those who “manage” the business of Consensus.

I submit that any student of Earth should be fascinated by Foucault’s Pendulum, and any

student of Foucault’s Pendulum should carefully read Longden’s article. (downloadable

@ Google Books under: A. C. Longden, “On the Irregularities of Motion of the Foucault

Pendulum”.

Everyone needs to judge for himself whether Longden’s article reflects badly

1) on Longden’s mechanical & lab skills or

2) on the bona fides of Leon Foucault’s ‘pendulum science’ .

Here is a sample page from Longden’s report :

7

(Please see Appendix for further author comments titled “A. C. Longden, the last honest

Physicist”.)

7 A. C. Longden. “On the Irregularities of Motion of the Foucault Pendulum”. The

Physical Review, Second Series, Vol XIII, No. 4, April, 1919, numbered pg 241 in

Journal-- pg 260/541 in my PDF copy

7c 3) Therefore if the bob of your big pendulum should veer off course that would be

entirely normal-- not anomalous.

It would just mean that there must be a mundane explanation for that veering—such as

human error in design, construction or operation. It is not some wonderful whispered

secret coded message from The Cosmos to you. It is hard for me to imagine anything

more alien to any cogent concept of “The Scientific Method” than Foucault’s “invariable

plane of oscillation”.

8) Rest in Peace

I have found no record of any formal adoption of the consensus belief that there” must

be dynamic terrestrial (non-astronomical) evidence of Earth’s rotation to be found in

Earth’s surface”. The historical record is clear that before about 1643 (100 years after

Copernicus released De Revolutionibus, by which time Earth’s heliocentric address had

become widely accepted) the natural state of equilibrium (tendency to stillness, balance

and constancy) of Earth’s surface was the main reason for the scientific consensus that

Earth was the (stationary) center of the Universe.

And the record is clear that after 1643 the scientific consensus held that there must be

dynamic terrestrial evidence of Earth’s rotation. Finding the (already accepted as fact)

evidence which proved this consensus quickly went straight to the top of the scientific

community’s agenda.

So, in Foucault’s defense let me point out that the Great Minds of the day were agreed

that it was not some theory, but rather was indisputable established settled fact that there

was/ is dynamic terrestrial evidence of Earth’s rotation to be found.

And it was obvious that the clever scientist who found that evidence would be greeted

and feted as the de facto Messiah of Physical Science.

So you could say that Leon Foucault’s “peer group” was there cheering him on as he

observed that the vibration azimuth of a limber rod appeared to be immune to directional

change when the lathe it was mounted in rotated…

which must show that “the azimuths along which pendulum bobs swing are independent

of any rotary movement of the bases on which the pendulums are mounted…

and as he told himself that a big pendulum sitting atop the North Pole would follow suit,

and so the swing azimuth of that big pendulum’s bob would likewise be immune to

directional change when the Earth- it- was- mounted- on rotated—

and Bob’s your uncle. Oh my gosh! “Ergo! Voila! , Voila! , Eureka ! & Hosannas!”

When Foucault proceeded to “pitch” his big pendulum (as the just-dug-up long-lost

terrestrial evidence of Earth’s rotation) it would have been virtually inevitable that

Foucault’s local scientific peer group would “validate” his “discovery”. After all, that

peer group had joined with all other Men of Science in practically putting out “Reward”

notices, as if the terrestrial evidence of Earth’s rotation was their “Lost Property”. And

the search had been going on for 200 years, no doubt ratcheting up the pressure to

“produce” with every passing month. So, in effect, they had jumped at the first chance

claimed ownership of the first plausible (to their desperate minds) “evidence” anyone

could come up with. From where they were sitting, it was their evidence, their project,

and Foucault was, in effect, acting as their agent when he, as luck would have it, had

happened across what just might be their misplaced “treasure” . The only uncertainties

had been:

“Where exactly has our treasure (the evidence) been hidden?” and

“Which clever local Peer Group will have the distinction of presenting the “discovery” to

the eagerly waiting-to-be wowed- masses?”

If Foucault were to be posthumously charged with “science fraud”, his lawyer could

argue “entrapment” and a jury might well agree.

Which all leaves me shaking my head and wondering;

1) “Why did not one member of the ‘Academie de Sciences’ in Paris in 1848, stand up

and inquire as to whether a turntable is actually representative of the Physics of Earth?

2) “Who, then, will judge the judges?

Appendix

Author investigates Physics principle behind Escape / Orbit velocity:

Memo from N. Copernicus To World

Subject: Hey, what took you guys so long?

Nicholas Copernicus, in 1543, offered Astronomical-based proofs that Earth is merely

one planet in a Solar-based system in his life’s-work-- Six Books on the Revolutions of

the Heavenly Spheres. I submit that Copernicus would have been aghast at two aspects

of the response to his Heliocentric theory: 1) that the World’s Great Minds have ignored

his teaching as to Earth’s nearly-perfect spherical form for over 400 years & 2) that those

same Great Minds --still-to this day—refuse to acknowledge just how perfectly stable a

platform Earth’s surface provides (by embracing the totally unsupported premise that

“Earth is a non-inertial frame of reference”).

From De Revolutionibus, Book One

Ch1,¶ 1: …of all forms, the sphere is the most perfect..

…the sun, moon, planets and stars, are seen to be of this shape;

Ch 2, ¶ 1: …the earth… presses upon its center from every direction,…

Ch 3, ¶1: …the ocean envelops the earth and fills its deeper chasms. Both tend toward

the same center because of their heaviness.

Ch 3, ¶ 5 The earth together with its surrounding waters must in fact have such a

shape as its shadow reveals, for it eclipses the moon with the arc of a

perfect circle.

Ch 8, ¶ 1 …if …earth rotates…its motion is natural…

That which is brought into existence by nature is well ordered and

preserved in its best state. Ptolemy has no cause, then, to fear that the

earth and everything earthly will be disrupted by a rotation created

through natural handiwork, which is quite different from what… human

intelligence can accomplish.

Ch 8, ¶ 7 …things that sink of their own weight…undoubtedly retain the same nature as

the whole of which they are parts…

Ch 9, ¶ 1 …gravity is nothing but a certain natural desire…implanted in parts, to gather

as a unity and a whole by combining in the form of a globe.

…through its operation they remain in that spherical shape

…Nevertheless, they swing round their circuits in divers ways.

…All these facts are disclosed to us…if only we look at the

matter…with both eyes.

Page xii of “Recueil”, quoting Leon Foucault’s own words

Here’s the Google Translation of that page (xii)of Recueil

Here’s a “neater” translation from The Franklin Institute

A.C. Longden, The Last Honest Physicist (author’s comments)

Longden’s report is accessible @

http://link.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PHRVAO&Volume=13&Issue=4

Point of fact: there is no record of anyone ever successfully building a pendulum which

actually operates in a “perfectly spherical manner”.

It’s true that because a spherical gravitational field acts upon its particles with

equilibrium, the natural direction of horizontal movement is along a geodesic line. It

does not at all follow, however, that any one specific Earthly motion event will happen

along a tidy geodesic line. Gravity permits too many variables in the environment, for

one thing. For another, there is the constant problem of the error factor in all human

endeavors.

Furthermore, of all man-made gadgets, the swinging bob of a truly “spherical” pendulum

would be one of the least likely to achieve perfect geodesic motion. (Hint: have you ever

tried to “stack” non-magnetized ball bearings by dropping one down on top of another? )

Longden’s article reveals some exceptional qualities in the man. No one else has ever

shown his level of intrepidity in investigating the non-conforming behavior of pendulum

bobs. Nor has anyone else ever had the honesty to “call a spade a spade” as far as that

undeniable non-conformity. These qualities distinguish Longden from his peers. He was

“a cut above the rest”. So there is some basis (other than my own fond memories of

Knox) for my theorizing that Longden was being disingenuous when he failed to even

hint at the possibility that Foucault’s Pendulum was “bad science”. I like to think that

the more actual time he spent with his own actual pendulums, the less credible became

the claims Foucault had made about his pendulum. In my mind I picture him there at

Knox in the wee hours of some snowy winter night, alone in his dimly lit lab, smoking

his pipe, pacing back and forth--wracking his brain trying to figure out--for the

thousandth time-- if there was any little detail he had been getting wrong, when the light

bulb finally switched on-- and he saw Foucault and his pendulum “unmasked”.

That euphoric rush would have been short-lived, as he fast-forwarded and saw that-- in

the academic climate of his day--if he went public with the truth……..

he’d be crucified by sundown and left for the crows.

It’d be the End of his life as he knew it.

So he merely published the bare-bones objective facts about his own pendulum bob

experience there in Galesburg, hoping his candor would motivate others to think-- and

then come forward as well.

Obviously, it did not.

“You can lead a horse to water, …”

C N Gifford Springfield, MO 65804

September 21, 2013

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Castlevecchi, Davide. “The Geoid: Why a map of Earth’s gravity yields a potato-shaped

planet”. Observations, Scientific American Blog Network. April 1, 2011.

URL 199.168.13.60

Foucault, Leon. Recueil des Travaux Scientifiques de Leon Foucault . Pble. Mme

Veuve Foucault. Sa mere. Paris. 1878

Genz, Kate. “Foucault’s Pendulum” , Great Experiments in Physics, May 3, 2011,

www,Prezi.com/3mnr84mxugaw/foucaults-pendulum/ URL 107,20.166.220

International Astronomical Union, 2006, www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA

26-5-6 pdf

Longden, A.C./ “On the irregularities of Motion of the Foucault Pendulum”, The

Physical Review, Vol. XIII, No.4, April, 1919

Rosen, Edward. On the Revolutions: Nicholas Copernicus’ Complete Works, Translation

and Commentary. Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.

Stern, David P, “Cruising Through the Solar System”, Sec 34, Orbits in Space, From

Stargazers to Starships, 2004, URL 208.72.84.197