4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The question is why doesn't it swing over prolonged periods like a pendulum?

Friction. Or is friction a hoax as well?

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The question is why doesn't it swing over prolonged periods like a pendulum?

Now keep trolling, you could have entered this in Google, as I did.

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Friction. Or is friction a hoax as well?

everything but snakes are a hoax 😳

2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

everything but snakes are a hoax 😳

I think dude is just starving for attention.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Friction. Or is friction a hoax as well?

I am wondering why the phenonomenon only works with Foucault's pendulum (albeit a little disingenuously as most people who see them in museums believe the movement is perpetual when it is not) and not other weights (another example is the plum bob).

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I am wondering why the phenonomenon only works with Foucault's pendulum (albeit a little disingenuously as most people who see them in museums believe the movement is perpetual when it is not) and not other weights (another example is the plum bob).

What phenonomenon?

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The question is why doesn't it swing over prolonged periods like a pendulum?

So now you confess that as well as not reading well, you also cannot formulate questions well enough to get a relevant answer. Who knew?..... everybody! That's why you get the search results you do.

8 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Now keep trolling, you could have entered this in Google, as I did.

Not trolling, I don't uderstand and am asking those who do. Why does this not apply to Foucault's pendulum?

OK, as you prompted me to, I have 'asked' AI. This was its 'response', which rightfully earns its place in the Top 10 Convoluted Heliocentrist Principles.:

The Earth Rotates Underneath While the pendulum is swinging back and forth on its fixed path, the Earth is spinning beneath it. To an observer in outer space, the pendulum’s path never changes; the planet simply rotates under the wire. To us standing on the ground, it looks like the pendulum is slowly shifting its direction over time.

Why does that not work with a wrecking ball or a dumb bob?

That is a great question. In theory, a wrecking ball is a pendulum, and it is technically being affected by the Earth's rotation. However, you don't see it happen because the effect is incredibly subtle, and everyday objects aren't "clean" enough to show it. Here is why a standard wrecking ball or a small DIY bob fails to show the rotation:

Air Resistance and Energy Loss

The Earth rotates very slowly (at most 15 degrees per hour). To see the floor move under the pendulum, the pendulum needs to keep swinging for hours.

The Problem: A standard wrecking ball or a small weight has a lot of air resistance relative to its momentum. They usually stop swinging (dampen) within a few minutes.

Foucault’s Fix: He used a massive lead-filled brass ball (heavy mass = high inertia) and a very long wire (67 meters). The long wire means the pendulum moves slowly through the air but carries immense energy, allowing it to swing for a long time.

Therefore the Earth is a spinning ball. I mean totally…

6 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

So now you confess that as well as not reading well, you also cannot formulate questions well enough to get a relevant answer. Who knew?..... everybody! That's why you get the search results you do.

That's why you guys need to educate me. I do appreciate the dedication.

1 hour ago, Effective altruism said:

I asked ChatGPT for the fun of it.

Yes—there are several “proofs” floating around that claim 1 = 0, but they all rely on a hidden illegal mathematical step. They’re usually designed to look convincing until you spot the flaw.

When somebody first told me that x° = 1... I laughed.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think dude is just starving for attention.

As I explained to another poster yesterday, it is always, 100% of the time other people who ask for my attention on this topic. If I get tagged with a text on Foucault's pendulum, of course I am going to answer.

You guys always prompt me to talk about the flat Earth because, ultimately, it's what you want.

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Not trolling, I don't uderstand and am asking those who do. Why does this not apply to Foucault's pendulum?

OK, as you prompted me to, I have 'asked' AI. This was its 'response', which rightfully earns its place in the Top 10 Convoluted Heliocentrist Principles.:

The Earth Rotates Underneath While the pendulum is swinging back and forth on its fixed path, the Earth is spinning beneath it. To an observer in outer space, the pendulum’s path never changes; the planet simply rotates under the wire. To us standing on the ground, it looks like the pendulum is slowly shifting its direction over time.

Why does that not work with a wrecking ball or a dumb bob?

That is a great question. In theory, a wrecking ball is a pendulum, and it is technically being affected by the Earth's rotation. However, you don't see it happen because the effect is incredibly subtle, and everyday objects aren't "clean" enough to show it. Here is why a standard wrecking ball or a small DIY bob fails to show the rotation:

Air Resistance and Energy Loss

The Earth rotates very slowly (at most 15 degrees per hour). To see the floor move under the pendulum, the pendulum needs to keep swinging for hours.

The Problem: A standard wrecking ball or a small weight has a lot of air resistance relative to its momentum. They usually stop swinging (dampen) within a few minutes.

Foucault’s Fix: He used a massive lead-filled brass ball (heavy mass = high inertia) and a very long wire (67 meters). The long wire means the pendulum moves slowly through the air but carries immense energy, allowing it to swing for a long time.

Therefore the Earth is a spinning ball. I mean totally…

Why do you say it does not work with a wrecking ball?

This just popped into my feeds.

Havent had time to watch it yet.

But the guy looks like a crackpot, so it should be entertaining.

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Foucault's pendulum was a failed experiment and proves nothing. Models of it are generally equipped with an electric, adjustable motor.

When AN gets too boring for you, here's a great trip.

Go see the Foucault pendulum at the South Pole.... and you can inspect the great ice wall up close as well. Watch out for those army fighter aircraft.

The pendulum's arc will change 13 degrees per hour. Easily observable.

https://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/00s/southpolefoucault.html

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I think dude is just starving for attention.

15 minutes later:

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why do you say it does not work with a wrecking ball?

If you think I am an attention seeker, the best approach is to stop giving me attention. I will cope, don't worry. 😊

In view of Trump's massive cuts to NASA's funding, do you think he is a hoax believer?

55 minutes ago, kwilco said:

In view of Trump's massive cuts to NASA's funding, do you think he is a hoax believer?

The request, submitted in May 2025, proposed a 24% cut to NASA's overall budget. In January 2026, Congress passed the final budget, rejecting nearly all of the proposed cuts.

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

15 minutes later:

If you think I am an attention seeker, the best approach is to stop giving me attention. I will cope, don't worry. 😊

Nice dodge brother, but I'm starving for attention as well.

So why are you claiming it does not work with a wrecking ball?

20 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

the best approach is to stop giving me attention

Yes - but you keep leaving yourself open to ridicule that can't be resisted.

The original title was “Why so many conspiracy theorists and what to do about them?”

It has revealed many ASEAN NOW members who are confirmed conspiracy theorists – a guide to how many... So what to do about them?

 

Here we have a "Credibility Cascade", and tby default there can be no such thing as a "halfway" conspiracy theorist.

 

The problem with the modern explosion of conspiracy theories isn't just the misinformation; it’s the total collapse of epistemic trust. We need to stop treating these "alternative views" as isolated quirks. Here’s the reality: If you buy one, you buy them all.

 

The broken "reasoning engine" logic isn't a buffet where you can pick and choose which parts of reality to accept. If someone rejects the foundational principles of basic science or the hierarchy of evidence, their "reasoning engine" is effectively broken.

Critical Thinking vs. Motivated Reasoning: Conspiracy theorists aren't "thinking for themselves". They are practising motivated reasoning—discarding any evidence that doesn't fit their pre-decided conclusion.

It’s a tainted well: once someone demonstrates they are willing to ignore logic in favour of an untenable idea, their views on everything—medicine, history, or life in general—become clouded by default.

What to do about them?

We have to stop pretending these are "healthy debates". You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who has abandoned the tools of rationality.

When a person’s worldview is rooted in the denial of reason, they haven't just lost the argument; they’ve lost their seat at the table of serious discussion.

 

The best approach isn't to "debunk" (which they enjoy), but to recognise that once the bridge to reality is burnt, there is no common ground left to stand on.

 

It is time we stopped giving "equal time" to these ideas that have zero basis in logic. They have lost the right to be accepted in a discussion.

 

14 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Yes - but you keep leaving yourself open to ridicule that can't be resisted.

Exactly.

16 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Nice dodge brother, but I'm starving for attention as well.

So why are you claiming it does not work with a wrecking ball?

A wrecking ball will swing back and forth for a very short time before coming to a rest.

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

So what to do about them?

You can't do anything about it… apart from ignoring it, and therefore:

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

They have lost the right to be accepted in a discussion.

I have lost the right to discuss with kwilco… I really have hit rock bottom…

19 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

The request, submitted in May 2025, proposed a 24% cut to NASA's overall budget. In January 2026, Congress passed the final budget, rejecting nearly all of the proposed cuts.

Oooops. Well this got awkward.

.

20 hours ago, kwilco said:

In view of Trump's massive cuts to NASA's funding, do you think he is a hoax believer?

Yes.

Here's one for the wholefood/additives conspiracists...

On 4/17/2026 at 5:34 PM, kwilco said:

That’s the fundamental difference between science and conspiracy thinking.

Science is quite happy to say, “we don’t know yet” — and then keeps testing, questioning, and updating as new evidence comes in. Being wrong isn’t failure; it’s part of the process.

Conspiracy thinking works the other way round.

The conclusion comes first. Then it’s a case of rummaging around for anything — however flimsy — that supports it, while ignoring or twisting everything that doesn’t. And crucially, the original idea never changes.

Also, the CT folks are 'experts' at misusing search engines. They ask for answers to their very biased 'leading questions' and are ecstatic when confirming results are returned. A nasty re-enforcing feedback loop.

This is an interesting one,

Fake, reality, truth, conspiracy or fiction ? All together ?

This is seriously troubling if you ask me! Enjoy, and give it a go at least the introduction

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

A wrecking ball will swing back and forth for a very short time before coming to a rest.

How do you know? Have you seen experiments with a wrecking ball?

I used to move a Huss Pirate for States back in the '80s. if it lost power at full height, it would swing for an hour easily without using the emergency hand-brake.

Here a photo of the actual ride, but I moved it when it was new: