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 favour 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? and that a pendulum so
suspended (as was M. Foucault’s), could not, after passing over one
arc of vibration, return through the same arc without there being many
chances to one that its globular point of suspension would slightly
turn or twist in its bed, and therefore give to the return or backward
oscillation a slight change of direction? Let the _immediate cause_ of
the pendulum’s liability to change its plane of vibration be traced;
and it will be found not to have the slightest connection with the
motion or non-motion of the surface over which it vibrates.
At a recent meeting of the French Academy of sciences, “M. Dehaut sent
in a note, stating that M. Foucault (whose experiments on the pendulum
effected a few years ago at the Pantheon, are of European notoriety) is
not the first discoverer of the fact that the plane of oscillation of
the free pendulum is invariable; but that the honour of the discovery
is due to Poinsinet de Sivry, who, in 1782, stated, in a note to his
translation of ‘Pliny,’ that a mariner’s compass might be constructed
without a magnet, by making a pendulum and setting it in motion in a
given direction; because, provided the motion were continually kept
up, the pendulum would continue to oscillate in the same direction, no
matter by how many points, or how often the ship might happen to change
her course.”
SECTION 13.
PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account