• What has stopped rotating?

    From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 22 17:29:39 2023
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Wed Nov 22 18:39:29 2023
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch

    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local rotational motion
    is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational state of the
    universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a spinning
    gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Nov 22 20:35:05 2023
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local rotational
    motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational state of the
    universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.

    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....


    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Wed Nov 22 21:21:06 2023
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local rotational
    motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational state of the
    universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector at
    the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Thu Nov 23 10:05:37 2023
    mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    See under: 'Conservation of angular momentum'

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Thu Nov 23 12:27:10 2023
    On 2023-11-23 01:29:39 +0000, mitchr...@gmail.com said:

    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation

    Gravity does not slow down rotation. Friction and collisions can slow
    down (or speed up) rotation.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 23 21:13:28 2023
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector at
    the unsupported end of a rotating mass.

    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Thu Nov 23 20:14:05 2023
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:11:27 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >>>
    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector at
    the unsupported end of a rotating mass.
    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Newton's laws only describe the precession of the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope when a force vector is crossed with that angular momentum vector. Newton's law give no hint, and have no clue as to why the direction of a gyroscope's angular
    momentum vector desires to remain unchanged with respect to the rest of the universe in the first place. Or what type of field, if any, that angular momentum field is coupling with in order to maintain its orientation to the universe

    This desire even counteracts the force of gravity. As long as the angular momentum vector's magnitude (not it's direction) remains unchanged, the free end of a gyroscope will not fall in a gravitational field. Instead it will precess at the at a
    constant z coordinate value and maintain a constant gravitational potential. Why the free end of the gyroscope desires to precess instead of desiring to fall to a lower gravitational potential, is a complete mystery to modern mechanics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Nov 23 20:26:20 2023
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:14:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:11:27 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >>>
    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector
    at the unsupported end of a rotating mass.
    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    Newton's laws only describe the precession of the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope when a force vector is crossed with that angular momentum vector. Newton's law give no hint, and have no clue as to why the direction of a gyroscope's angular
    momentum vector desires to remain unchanged with respect to the rest of the universe in the first place. Or what type of field, if any, that angular momentum field is coupling with in order to maintain its orientation to the universe

    This desire even counteracts the force of gravity. As long as the angular momentum vector's magnitude (not it's direction) remains unchanged, the free end of a gyroscope will not fall in a gravitational field. Instead it will precess at the at a
    constant z coordinate value and maintain a constant gravitational potential. Why the free end of the gyroscope desires to precess instead of desiring to fall to a lower gravitational potential, is a complete mystery to modern mechanics.

    Some observations:

    1. For a constant force acting perpendicular to the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope, the angular velocity of gyroscope's precession is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the angular momentum vector. The faster it spins, the slower it
    precesses.

    At a certain velocity, that is to say a certain angular momentum, the gyroscope will not longer precess. The free end will simply levitate in space. If I were to then stand on the free end, it would begin to precess again until the rotational velocity
    was increased to a value where the precession stopped again. I shall call this the precession extinguishing value of the angular momentum for a given perpendicular force.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Nov 23 23:29:35 2023
    On 11/23/2023 11:14 PM, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:11:27 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >>>>>
    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector at
    the unsupported end of a rotating mass.
    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Newton's laws only describe the precession of the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope when a force vector is crossed with that angular momentum vector. Newton's law give no hint, and have no clue as to why the direction of a gyroscope's angular
    momentum vector desires to remain unchanged with respect to the rest of the universe in the first place. Or what type of field, if any, that angular momentum field is coupling with in order to maintain its orientation to the universe

    This desire even counteracts the force of gravity. As long as the angular momentum vector's magnitude (not it's direction) remains unchanged, the free end of a gyroscope will not fall in a gravitational field. Instead it will precess at the at a
    constant z coordinate value and maintain a constant gravitational potential. Why the free end of the gyroscope desires to precess instead of desiring to fall to a lower gravitational potential, is a complete mystery to modern mechanics.

    No mystery. The cross product of the angular momentum vector and the
    gravity vector (downward) is at a right angle to both. That means the
    force on the gyroscope free end will move at a right angle to gravity
    (-z direction) so it will move in the xy plane. No "desire" involved, gyroscopes are inanimate objects. It follows the laws of physics, in
    this case high school level physics, so the free end will precess
    parallel to the ground.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Nov 23 20:36:25 2023
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:29:40 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 11/23/2023 11:14 PM, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:11:27 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >>>>>
    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector
    at the unsupported end of a rotating mass.
    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Newton's laws only describe the precession of the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope when a force vector is crossed with that angular momentum vector. Newton's law give no hint, and have no clue as to why the direction of a gyroscope's angular
    momentum vector desires to remain unchanged with respect to the rest of the universe in the first place. Or what type of field, if any, that angular momentum field is coupling with in order to maintain its orientation to the universe

    This desire even counteracts the force of gravity. As long as the angular momentum vector's magnitude (not it's direction) remains unchanged, the free end of a gyroscope will not fall in a gravitational field. Instead it will precess at the at a
    constant z coordinate value and maintain a constant gravitational potential. Why the free end of the gyroscope desires to precess instead of desiring to fall to a lower gravitational potential, is a complete mystery to modern mechanics.
    No mystery. The cross product of the angular momentum vector and the
    gravity vector (downward) is at a right angle to both. That means the
    force on the gyroscope free end will move at a right angle to gravity
    (-z direction) so it will move in the xy plane. No "desire" involved, gyroscopes are inanimate objects. It follows the laws of physics, in
    this case high school level physics, so the free end will precess
    parallel to the ground.

    Foolish Volroney. You are describing precession in the x-y plane. The there is also another mystery force vector acting on the free end of the gyroscope that exactly counteracts the force of gravity which keeps the free end from falling. But only
    while the angular momentum vector magnitude is non-zero.

    If the gyroscope is spinning then the free end maintains it's z value when you remove your fingers from it. If the gyroscope is not spinning then the free end immediately falls to a minimum z value when you take your fingers away.

    Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Nov 23 20:59:02 2023
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:29:40 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 11/23/2023 11:14 PM, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:11:27 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector
    at the unsupported end of a rotating mass.
    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Newton's laws only describe the precession of the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope when a force vector is crossed with that angular momentum vector. Newton's law give no hint, and have no clue as to why the direction of a gyroscope's angular
    momentum vector desires to remain unchanged with respect to the rest of the universe in the first place. Or what type of field, if any, that angular momentum field is coupling with in order to maintain its orientation to the universe

    This desire even counteracts the force of gravity. As long as the angular momentum vector's magnitude (not it's direction) remains unchanged, the free end of a gyroscope will not fall in a gravitational field. Instead it will precess at the at a
    constant z coordinate value and maintain a constant gravitational potential. Why the free end of the gyroscope desires to precess instead of desiring to fall to a lower gravitational potential, is a complete mystery to modern mechanics.
    No mystery. The cross product of the angular momentum vector and the gravity vector (downward) is at a right angle to both. That means the force on the gyroscope free end will move at a right angle to gravity
    (-z direction) so it will move in the xy plane. No "desire" involved, gyroscopes are inanimate objects. It follows the laws of physics, in
    this case high school level physics, so the free end will precess
    parallel to the ground.
    Foolish Volroney. You are describing precession in the x-y plane. The there is also another mystery force vector acting on the free end of the gyroscope that exactly counteracts the force of gravity which keeps the free end from falling. But only while
    the angular momentum vector magnitude is non-zero.

    If the gyroscope is spinning then the free end maintains it's z value when you remove your fingers from it. If the gyroscope is not spinning then the free end immediately falls to a minimum z value when you take your fingers away.

    Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case


    https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Nov 23 21:16:19 2023
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:59:05 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:29:40 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 11/23/2023 11:14 PM, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:11:27 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of
    a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field
    vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass.
    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Newton's laws only describe the precession of the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope when a force vector is crossed with that angular momentum vector. Newton's law give no hint, and have no clue as to why the direction of a gyroscope's
    angular momentum vector desires to remain unchanged with respect to the rest of the universe in the first place. Or what type of field, if any, that angular momentum field is coupling with in order to maintain its orientation to the universe

    This desire even counteracts the force of gravity. As long as the angular momentum vector's magnitude (not it's direction) remains unchanged, the free end of a gyroscope will not fall in a gravitational field. Instead it will precess at the at a
    constant z coordinate value and maintain a constant gravitational potential. Why the free end of the gyroscope desires to precess instead of desiring to fall to a lower gravitational potential, is a complete mystery to modern mechanics.
    No mystery. The cross product of the angular momentum vector and the gravity vector (downward) is at a right angle to both. That means the force on the gyroscope free end will move at a right angle to gravity (-z direction) so it will move in the xy plane. No "desire" involved, gyroscopes are inanimate objects. It follows the laws of physics, in this case high school level physics, so the free end will precess parallel to the ground.
    Foolish Volroney. You are describing precession in the x-y plane. The there is also another mystery force vector acting on the free end of the gyroscope that exactly counteracts the force of gravity which keeps the free end from falling. But only
    while the angular momentum vector magnitude is non-zero.

    If the gyroscope is spinning then the free end maintains it's z value when you remove your fingers from it. If the gyroscope is not spinning then the free end immediately falls to a minimum z value when you take your fingers away.

    Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case
    https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698

    Put another way, imagine a blind man who learned all of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. He understood them perfectly. But he had never laid eyes on a gyroscope (how could he?). There is no possible way that this man could deduce the
    laws of precession, much less the gravity defying-behavior of the free end of a gyroscope from his knowledge of mechanics. Also, there is no way that even the seeing man, even now can derive the fact that gyroscopes desire to permanently maintain their
    orientation to the universe https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=mp3HkEBO1lLWP6Fy&t=2780

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Nov 23 22:16:01 2023
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 9:16:21 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:59:05 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:29:40 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 11/23/2023 11:14 PM, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:11:27 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end
    of a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field
    vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass.
    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Newton's laws only describe the precession of the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope when a force vector is crossed with that angular momentum vector. Newton's law give no hint, and have no clue as to why the direction of a gyroscope's
    angular momentum vector desires to remain unchanged with respect to the rest of the universe in the first place. Or what type of field, if any, that angular momentum field is coupling with in order to maintain its orientation to the universe

    This desire even counteracts the force of gravity. As long as the angular momentum vector's magnitude (not it's direction) remains unchanged, the free end of a gyroscope will not fall in a gravitational field. Instead it will precess at the at
    a constant z coordinate value and maintain a constant gravitational potential. Why the free end of the gyroscope desires to precess instead of desiring to fall to a lower gravitational potential, is a complete mystery to modern mechanics.
    No mystery. The cross product of the angular momentum vector and the gravity vector (downward) is at a right angle to both. That means the force on the gyroscope free end will move at a right angle to gravity (-z direction) so it will move in the xy plane. No "desire" involved, gyroscopes are inanimate objects. It follows the laws of physics, in this case high school level physics, so the free end will precess parallel to the ground.
    Foolish Volroney. You are describing precession in the x-y plane. The there is also another mystery force vector acting on the free end of the gyroscope that exactly counteracts the force of gravity which keeps the free end from falling. But only
    while the angular momentum vector magnitude is non-zero.

    If the gyroscope is spinning then the free end maintains it's z value when you remove your fingers from it. If the gyroscope is not spinning then the free end immediately falls to a minimum z value when you take your fingers away.

    Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case
    https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698
    Put another way, imagine a blind man who learned all of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. He understood them perfectly. But he had never laid eyes on a gyroscope (how could he?). There is no possible way that this man could deduce the
    laws of precession, much less the gravity defying-behavior of the free end of a gyroscope from his knowledge of mechanics. Also, there is no way that even the seeing man, even now can derive the fact that gyroscopes desire to permanently maintain their
    orientation to the universe https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=mp3HkEBO1lLWP6Fy&t=2780

    Newton was a relativist when it came to Galilean relativity. In the Principia Newton speculated about absolute motion qua Fr. Domingo de Soto's law of inertia which was plagiarized a century later by Galileo. Newton conceded that Galilean relativity
    provides no sure-fire test to determine which of two objects can be said to be at absolute rest wrt the other when they share a relative velocity between them. But he was no relativist when it came to circular motion. Newton concluded that the state of
    circular motion was absolute: either an object was in circular motion or it was at absolute circular rest. He posited a bucket filled with water as a test case. If the bucket was at absolute circular rest then the surface of the water in the bucket
    would be flat. Any circular motion of the bucket would be betrayed by a more or less parabolic surface of the water, depending on the degree of circular motion.

    But the modern-thinking Ernst Mach came along with his Mach's principle which claimed that an experimenter can not distinguish between a bucket of water spinning while the universe remains still, and the universe spinning around the bucket whilst the
    bucket remains still. Furthermore, in an empty universe where only Newton's bucket exists, the water surface in Newton's bucket would not curve into a parabola no matter how fast the bucket spins.

    Circular motion has always been the mortal enemy of Einsteinian relativity. Curved geometry was invented to hide this fact. But curved geometry hasn't succeeded in concealing anything.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Nov 24 09:37:50 2023
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 1:29:40 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 11/23/2023 11:14 PM, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:11:27 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >>>>>
    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector
    at the unsupported end of a rotating mass.
    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Newton's laws only describe the precession of the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope when a force vector is crossed with that angular momentum vector. Newton's law give no hint, and have no clue as to why the direction of a gyroscope's angular
    momentum vector desires to remain unchanged with respect to the rest of the universe in the first place. Or what type of field, if any, that angular momentum field is coupling with in order to maintain its orientation to the universe

    This desire even counteracts the force of gravity. As long as the angular momentum vector's magnitude (not it's direction) remains unchanged, the free end of a gyroscope will not fall in a gravitational field. Instead it will precess at the at a
    constant z coordinate value and maintain a constant gravitational potential. Why the free end of the gyroscope desires to precess instead of desiring to fall to a lower gravitational potential, is a complete mystery to modern mechanics.
    No mystery. The cross product of the angular momentum vector and the
    gravity vector (downward) is at a right angle to both. That means the
    force on the gyroscope free end will move at a right angle to gravity
    (-z direction) so it will move in the xy plane. No "desire" involved, gyroscopes are inanimate objects. It follows the laws of physics, in
    this case high school level physics, so the free end will precess
    parallel to the ground.

    As always, an opinionated asshole writing bullshit

    Explain this, Volney, about gyroscopes working in the ISS. Where is its main axis pointing?

    https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2016/03/Gyroscopes_in_space

    "There is no up or down in space. Satellites track their pointing direction using the same approach as on submarines and aircraft:
    fast-spinning gyroscopes that maintain a fixed orientation in the same way as a child’s spinning top. The International Space Station
    has four big gyroscopes which are used for stabilization of the station".

    Now apply something of this to galaxies rotation curves and dark matter (or another unknown physics effect).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Nov 24 10:47:03 2023
    patdolan wrote:

    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:11:27 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >>>
    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector
    at the unsupported end of a rotating mass.
    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Newton's laws only describe the precession of the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope when a force vector is crossed with that angular momentum vector. Newton's law give no hint, and have no clue as to why the direction of a gyroscope's angular
    momentum vector desires to remain unchanged with respect to the rest of the universe in the first place. Or what type of field, if any, that angular momentum field is coupling with in order to maintain its orientation to the universe

    This desire even counteracts the force of gravity. As long as the angular momentum vector's magnitude (not it's direction) remains unchanged, the free end of a gyroscope will not fall in a gravitational field. Instead it will precess at the at a
    constant z coordinate value and maintain a constant gravitational potential. Why the free end of the gyroscope desires to precess instead of desiring to fall to a lower gravitational potential, is a complete mystery to modern mechanics.


    are you people forgetingg dat einstein is still collecting royaltities
    from the patent gyroscope????


    he should know all about gyroscopes, its in his resume. he braggs a bout
    it...






    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Nov 24 13:17:42 2023
    On 11/23/2023 11:36 PM, patdolan wrote:

    Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case.

    I already told you. The force on the free end (actually the spinning
    mass) is the cross product of the gravitational force and the rotational
    axis, and will be perpendicular to gravity. It will be in the xy plane
    (with down being -z). So the free end will move sideways, and trace a
    circle.

    The other end of the gyroscope, the bearing or axis on the table/floor
    will have the full force of gravity corresponding to its mass on it, so
    gravity still "works", of course.

    So you don't even understand Newtonian mechanics yet you think you are
    smart enough to claim relativity is wrong? Learn Newtonian mechanics first.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Nov 24 10:49:08 2023
    patdolan wrote:

    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:11:27 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >>>
    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector
    at the unsupported end of a rotating mass.
    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Newton's laws only describe the precession of the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope when a force vector is crossed with that angular momentum vector. Newton's law give no hint, and have no clue as to why the direction of a gyroscope's angular
    momentum vector desires to remain unchanged with respect to the rest of the universe in the first place. Or what type of field, if any, that angular momentum field is coupling with in order to maintain its orientation to the universe

    This desire even counteracts the force of gravity. As long as the angular momentum vector's magnitude (not it's direction) remains unchanged, the free end of a gyroscope will not fall in a gravitational field. Instead it will precess at the at a
    constant z coordinate value and maintain a constant gravitational potential. Why the free end of the gyroscope desires to precess instead of desiring to fall to a lower gravitational potential, is a complete mystery to modern mechanics.




    from where i'm standing the sun rotates around the earth and the moon.



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Nov 24 13:18:25 2023
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 10:17:46 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 11/23/2023 11:36 PM, patdolan wrote:

    Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case.
    I already told you. The force on the free end (actually the spinning
    mass) is the cross product of the gravitational force and the rotational axis, and will be perpendicular to gravity. It will be in the xy plane
    (with down being -z). So the free end will move sideways, and trace a circle.
    Yes, I agree. But but you are still describing precession, my slow-witted boy. We all know about precession (Actually we don't. But more about that below.). Look here, my boy, if you add the precession vector to the gravity vector, the resulting force
    vector still has a gigantic vector component in the -z direction which should take the free end of the gyroscope down in the -z direction. What I want to know about is the mysterious force vector that is anti-parallel to the gravity vector at the free
    end of the gyroscope and only shows up when it is spinning. This mysterious force vector exactly counteracts gravity and keeps the free end of the gyroscope at constant z even though x and y are changing due to precession. Is this explanation clear
    enough for you, my relativity-besotted youth?

    Now, as to the precession vector, which is the cross product bastard child of the angular momentum vector and the torque vector. Both vectors have the same units. This is a strange vector indeed and is in need of its own separate post for a full
    analysis of its several epi-Newtonian behaviors.

    The other end of the gyroscope, the bearing or axis on the table/floor
    will have the full force of gravity corresponding to its mass on it, so gravity still "works", of course.

    So you don't even understand Newtonian mechanics yet you think you are
    smart enough to claim relativity is wrong? Learn Newtonian mechanics first.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Fri Nov 24 14:25:45 2023
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 2:37:52 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 1:29:40 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 11/23/2023 11:14 PM, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:11:27 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 23.11.2023 06:21, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector
    at the unsupported end of a rotating mass.
    A gyroscope is perfectly described by Newtonian Mechanics.
    There are no mysteries, it all follows from Newton's laws
    of motion. If you are reasonably intelligent, you should
    be able to understand how said laws of motion make a gyroscope
    in a gravitational field precess without divine help.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Newton's laws only describe the precession of the angular momentum vector of a gyroscope when a force vector is crossed with that angular momentum vector. Newton's law give no hint, and have no clue as to why the direction of a gyroscope's angular
    momentum vector desires to remain unchanged with respect to the rest of the universe in the first place. Or what type of field, if any, that angular momentum field is coupling with in order to maintain its orientation to the universe

    This desire even counteracts the force of gravity. As long as the angular momentum vector's magnitude (not it's direction) remains unchanged, the free end of a gyroscope will not fall in a gravitational field. Instead it will precess at the at a
    constant z coordinate value and maintain a constant gravitational potential. Why the free end of the gyroscope desires to precess instead of desiring to fall to a lower gravitational potential, is a complete mystery to modern mechanics.
    No mystery. The cross product of the angular momentum vector and the gravity vector (downward) is at a right angle to both. That means the force on the gyroscope free end will move at a right angle to gravity
    (-z direction) so it will move in the xy plane. No "desire" involved, gyroscopes are inanimate objects. It follows the laws of physics, in
    this case high school level physics, so the free end will precess
    parallel to the ground.
    As always, an opinionated asshole writing bullshit

    Explain this, Volney, about gyroscopes working in the ISS. Where is its main axis pointing?

    https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2016/03/Gyroscopes_in_space

    "There is no up or down in space. Satellites track their pointing direction using the same approach as on submarines and aircraft:
    fast-spinning gyroscopes that maintain a fixed orientation in the same way as a child’s spinning top. The International Space Station
    has four big gyroscopes which are used for stabilization of the station".

    Now apply something of this to galaxies rotation curves and dark matter (or another unknown physics effect).


    Also, observe: no precession in the gyro experiment done in the ISS, as it was shown in the ESA video.

    Explain that too, Volney.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Nov 24 17:53:42 2023
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local rotational
    motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational state of the
    universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around. If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.

    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight.
    There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.


    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector at
    the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.

    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Nov 24 19:10:39 2023
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local
    rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational
    state of the universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight. There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector
    at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.

    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Fri Nov 24 18:16:24 2023
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local rotational
    motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational state of the
    universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of a
    spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight. There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector at
    the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity. A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Fri Nov 24 19:44:47 2023
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local
    rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational
    state of the universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end of
    a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight. There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field vector
    at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.
    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.
    No worries Mitch. I have a wonderful toy gyroscope which I keep on the same shelf as my teddy bears. It weights almost two pounds, is over 6 inches in diameter, is enclosed in a plastic cover, and has a cranking port so I can really whip up the rpms.

    I have attached a string to the ceiling. I am now dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with my fingers. The axis is level and parallel with the floor. It is not spinning. Now I'm letting go with my fingers. The
    gyroscope rotated down 90 degrees so that it is now dangling from the ceiling with the axis now vertical to the floor--string end is high and the other end I held in my fingers is low. Now I'll bring the axis back up to level with the floor and spin up
    the gyro real good...

    Okay, the gyro is really humming! The string and my fingers are holding the axis level to the floor again. Now I'm going to let go with my fingers....LOOK AT THAT! The loose end doesn't rotate down this time! Yes, it's precessing. But the precession
    is far less dramatic and far less interesting than the gravity-defying end of the gyro hanging there in mid air. The axis is absolutely level with the floor and no visible means of support.

    This MIT schiester thinks he has solved the riddle https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Fri Nov 24 21:28:16 2023
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:23:27 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
    patdolan wrote:

    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local
    rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free
    end of a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight.
    There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight. If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field
    vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.
    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.
    No worries Mitch. I have a wonderful toy gyroscope which I keep on the same shelf as my teddy bears. It weights almost two pounds, is over 6 inches in diameter, is enclosed in a plastic cover, and has a cranking port so I can really whip up the rpms.

    I have attached a string to the ceiling. I am now dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with my fingers. The axis is level and parallel with the floor. It is not spinning. Now I'm letting go with my fingers. The
    gyroscope rotated down 90 degrees so that it is now dangling from the ceiling with the axis now vertical to the floor--string end is high and the other end I held in my fingers is low. Now I'll bring the axis back up to level with the floor and spin up

    Okay, the gyro is really humming! The string and my fingers are holding the axis level to the floor again. Now I'm going to let go with my fingers....LOOK AT THAT! The loose end doesn't rotate down this time! Yes, it's precessing. But the precession
    is far less dramatic and far less interesting than the gravity-defying end of the gyro hanging there in mid air. The axis is absolutely level with the floor and no visible means of support.

    This MIT schiester thinks he has solved the riddle https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698
    if you are dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the
    other end with your fingers... you owe Einstein royaltities fees.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    Anyone have Einstein's patent number?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Nov 24 21:23:32 2023
    patdolan wrote:

    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local
    rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end
    of a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight. There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field
    vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.
    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.
    No worries Mitch. I have a wonderful toy gyroscope which I keep on the same shelf as my teddy bears. It weights almost two pounds, is over 6 inches in diameter, is enclosed in a plastic cover, and has a cranking port so I can really whip up the rpms.

    I have attached a string to the ceiling. I am now dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with my fingers. The axis is level and parallel with the floor. It is not spinning. Now I'm letting go with my fingers. The
    gyroscope rotated down 90 degrees so that it is now dangling from the ceiling with the axis now vertical to the floor--string end is high and the other end I held in my fingers is low. Now I'll bring the axis back up to level with the floor and spin up

    Okay, the gyro is really humming! The string and my fingers are holding the axis level to the floor again. Now I'm going to let go with my fingers....LOOK AT THAT! The loose end doesn't rotate down this time! Yes, it's precessing. But the
    precession is far less dramatic and far less interesting than the gravity-defying end of the gyro hanging there in mid air. The axis is absolutely level with the floor and no visible means of support.

    This MIT schiester thinks he has solved the riddle https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698

    if you are dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the
    other end with your fingers... you owe Einstein royaltities fees.


    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Nov 24 21:34:27 2023
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:44:50 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local
    rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational
    state of the universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free end
    of a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight.
    There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field
    vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.
    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.
    No worries Mitch. I have a wonderful toy gyroscope which I keep on the same shelf as my teddy bears. It weights almost two pounds, is over 6 inches in diameter, is enclosed in a plastic cover, and has a cranking port so I can really whip up the rpms.

    I have attached a string to the ceiling. I am now dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with my fingers. The axis is level and parallel with the floor. It is not spinning. Now I'm letting go with my fingers. The gyroscope
    rotated down 90 degrees so that it is now dangling from the ceiling with the axis now vertical to the floor--string end is high and the other end I held in my fingers is low. Now I'll bring the axis back up to level with the floor and spin up the gyro
    real good...

    Okay, the gyro is really humming! The string and my fingers are holding the axis level to the floor again. Now I'm going to let go with my fingers....LOOK AT THAT! The loose end doesn't rotate down this time! Yes, it's precessing. But the precession is
    far less dramatic and far less interesting than the gravity-defying end of the gyro hanging there in mid air. The axis is absolutely level with the floor and no visible means of support.

    This MIT schiester thinks he has solved the riddle https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698

    I always felt it braced in space. Heavy to the tilt.
    You are suggesting it is braced tilted horizontal?
    I believe that is its natural gravitational orientation.
    If you tilt it all of the way and leave it alone
    it would remain horizontal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to patdolan on Fri Nov 24 23:12:19 2023
    patdolan wrote:

    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:23:27 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
    patdolan wrote:

    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local
    rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotatio
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free
    end of a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight.
    There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight. If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field
    vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.
    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.
    No worries Mitch. I have a wonderful toy gyroscope which I keep on the same shelf as my teddy bears. It weights almost two pounds, is over 6 inches in diameter, is enclosed in a plastic cover, and has a cranking port so I can really whip up the
    rpms.

    I have attached a string to the ceiling. I am now dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with my fingers. The axis is level and parallel with the floor. It is not spinning. Now I'm letting go with my fingers. The
    gyroscope rotated down 90 degrees so that it is now dangling from the ceiling with the axis now vertical to the floor--string end is high and the other end I held in my fingers is low. Now I'll bring the axis back up to level with the floor and spin up

    Okay, the gyro is really humming! The string and my fingers are holding the axis level to the floor again. Now I'm going to let go with my fingers....LOOK AT THAT! The loose end doesn't rotate down this time! Yes, it's precessing. But the
    precession is far less dramatic and far less interesting than the gravity-defying end of the gyro hanging there in mid air. The axis is absolutely level with the floor and no visible means of support.

    This MIT schiester thinks he has solved the riddle https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698
    if you are dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the
    other end with your fingers... you owe Einstein royaltities fees.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    Anyone have Einstein's patent number?

    https://books.google.com/books/content?id=EoMixQWUj6oC&pg=PA160&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U2FKw90EXnDjk31v3VUzN9zGY8DGg&w=1280


    check with the patent office in Zurich.



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sat Nov 25 00:10:54 2023
    The Starmaker wrote:

    patdolan wrote:

    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:23:27 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
    patdolan wrote:

    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all
    local rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotat
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying
    free end of a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight.
    There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational
    field vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.
    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.
    No worries Mitch. I have a wonderful toy gyroscope which I keep on the same shelf as my teddy bears. It weights almost two pounds, is over 6 inches in diameter, is enclosed in a plastic cover, and has a cranking port so I can really whip up the
    rpms.

    I have attached a string to the ceiling. I am now dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with my fingers. The axis is level and parallel with the floor. It is not spinning. Now I'm letting go with my fingers. The
    gyroscope rotated down 90 degrees so that it is now dangling from the ceiling with the axis now vertical to the floor--string end is high and the other end I held in my fingers is low. Now I'll bring the axis back up to level with the floor and spin up

    Okay, the gyro is really humming! The string and my fingers are holding the axis level to the floor again. Now I'm going to let go with my fingers....LOOK AT THAT! The loose end doesn't rotate down this time! Yes, it's precessing. But the
    precession is far less dramatic and far less interesting than the gravity-defying end of the gyro hanging there in mid air. The axis is absolutely level with the floor and no visible means of support.

    This MIT schiester thinks he has solved the riddle https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698
    if you are dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with your fingers... you owe Einstein royaltities fees.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
    Anyone have Einstein's patent number?

    https://books.google.com/books/content?id=EoMixQWUj6oC&pg=PA160&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U2FKw90EXnDjk31v3VUzN9zGY8DGg&w=1280

    check with the patent office in Zurich.

    i have the patent number somewhere....why do you need a patent number? you read german?

    https://einstein-website.de/en/faq/
    Einstein had worked at the Patent Office (Swiss Office for Intellectual Property) for some years in Bern.

    he owned more then twenty patents. However, always together with a partner. With the industrial Hermann Anschtz-Kaempfe a patent for a gyroscopic compass

    i thought i found a Einstein patent for a time machine but it turn out somebody else took out the patent based on einstein' relativity.



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sun Nov 26 08:19:29 2023
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:34:29 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:44:50 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local
    rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational
    state of the universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free
    end of a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight.
    There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight. If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field
    vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.
    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.
    No worries Mitch. I have a wonderful toy gyroscope which I keep on the same shelf as my teddy bears. It weights almost two pounds, is over 6 inches in diameter, is enclosed in a plastic cover, and has a cranking port so I can really whip up the rpms.

    I have attached a string to the ceiling. I am now dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with my fingers. The axis is level and parallel with the floor. It is not spinning. Now I'm letting go with my fingers. The
    gyroscope rotated down 90 degrees so that it is now dangling from the ceiling with the axis now vertical to the floor--string end is high and the other end I held in my fingers is low. Now I'll bring the axis back up to level with the floor and spin up
    the gyro real good...

    Okay, the gyro is really humming! The string and my fingers are holding the axis level to the floor again. Now I'm going to let go with my fingers....LOOK AT THAT! The loose end doesn't rotate down this time! Yes, it's precessing. But the precession
    is far less dramatic and far less interesting than the gravity-defying end of the gyro hanging there in mid air. The axis is absolutely level with the floor and no visible means of support.

    This MIT schiester thinks he has solved the riddle https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698
    I always felt it braced in space. Heavy to the tilt.
    You are suggesting it is braced tilted horizontal?
    I believe that is its natural gravitational orientation.
    If you tilt it all of the way and leave it alone
    it would remain horizontal.
    Mitch, I have just now realized the value of your term "braced in space" regarding the gyroscope. Brilliant. Now consider this: while there is "precession math" there exists no "braced math". And I defy any relativist to gainsay me in this matter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Nov 26 11:10:00 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:19:32 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:34:29 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:44:50 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all local
    rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final rotational
    state of the universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying free
    end of a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight.
    There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational field
    vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.
    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.
    No worries Mitch. I have a wonderful toy gyroscope which I keep on the same shelf as my teddy bears. It weights almost two pounds, is over 6 inches in diameter, is enclosed in a plastic cover, and has a cranking port so I can really whip up the
    rpms.

    I have attached a string to the ceiling. I am now dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with my fingers. The axis is level and parallel with the floor. It is not spinning. Now I'm letting go with my fingers. The
    gyroscope rotated down 90 degrees so that it is now dangling from the ceiling with the axis now vertical to the floor--string end is high and the other end I held in my fingers is low. Now I'll bring the axis back up to level with the floor and spin up
    the gyro real good...

    Okay, the gyro is really humming! The string and my fingers are holding the axis level to the floor again. Now I'm going to let go with my fingers....LOOK AT THAT! The loose end doesn't rotate down this time! Yes, it's precessing. But the
    precession is far less dramatic and far less interesting than the gravity-defying end of the gyro hanging there in mid air. The axis is absolutely level with the floor and no visible means of support.

    This MIT schiester thinks he has solved the riddle https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698
    I always felt it braced in space. Heavy to the tilt.
    You are suggesting it is braced tilted horizontal?
    I believe that is its natural gravitational orientation.
    If you tilt it all of the way and leave it alone
    it would remain horizontal.
    Mitch, I have just now realized the value of your term "braced in space" regarding the gyroscope. Brilliant. Now consider this: while there is "precession math" there exists no "braced math". And I defy any relativist to gainsay me in this matter.

    I predict one further thing. Where the rotation stops the gyroscope brace will go away
    and the hanging gyroscope will fall back to its vertical axis.
    Any rotation keeps the brace but without it it goes away.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sun Nov 26 16:45:00 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:19:32 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:34:29 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:44:50 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all
    local rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final
    rotational state of the universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying
    free end of a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight.
    There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational
    field vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.
    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.
    No worries Mitch. I have a wonderful toy gyroscope which I keep on the same shelf as my teddy bears. It weights almost two pounds, is over 6 inches in diameter, is enclosed in a plastic cover, and has a cranking port so I can really whip up the
    rpms.

    I have attached a string to the ceiling. I am now dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with my fingers. The axis is level and parallel with the floor. It is not spinning. Now I'm letting go with my fingers. The
    gyroscope rotated down 90 degrees so that it is now dangling from the ceiling with the axis now vertical to the floor--string end is high and the other end I held in my fingers is low. Now I'll bring the axis back up to level with the floor and spin up
    the gyro real good...

    Okay, the gyro is really humming! The string and my fingers are holding the axis level to the floor again. Now I'm going to let go with my fingers....LOOK AT THAT! The loose end doesn't rotate down this time! Yes, it's precessing. But the
    precession is far less dramatic and far less interesting than the gravity-defying end of the gyro hanging there in mid air. The axis is absolutely level with the floor and no visible means of support.

    This MIT schiester thinks he has solved the riddle https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698
    I always felt it braced in space. Heavy to the tilt.
    You are suggesting it is braced tilted horizontal?
    I believe that is its natural gravitational orientation.
    If you tilt it all of the way and leave it alone
    it would remain horizontal.
    Mitch, I have just now realized the value of your term "braced in space" regarding the gyroscope. Brilliant. Now consider this: while there is "precession math" there exists no "braced math". And I defy any relativist to gainsay me in this matter.
    I predict one further thing. Where the rotation stops the gyroscope brace will go away
    and the hanging gyroscope will fall back to its vertical axis.
    Any rotation keeps the brace but without it it goes away.
    You predict this, Mitch? Ahem...say Mitch, what do you make of the Dzhanibekov Effect?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU

    Notice that the rotation is always in the same direction. Also note that there is no "Dzhanibekov math" to explain it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Nov 26 16:58:13 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:19:32 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:34:29 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:44:50 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all
    local rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final
    rotational state of the universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it?
    That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying
    free end of a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight.
    There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational
    field vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.
    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.
    No worries Mitch. I have a wonderful toy gyroscope which I keep on the same shelf as my teddy bears. It weights almost two pounds, is over 6 inches in diameter, is enclosed in a plastic cover, and has a cranking port so I can really whip up the
    rpms.

    I have attached a string to the ceiling. I am now dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with my fingers. The axis is level and parallel with the floor. It is not spinning. Now I'm letting go with my fingers. The
    gyroscope rotated down 90 degrees so that it is now dangling from the ceiling with the axis now vertical to the floor--string end is high and the other end I held in my fingers is low. Now I'll bring the axis back up to level with the floor and spin up
    the gyro real good...

    Okay, the gyro is really humming! The string and my fingers are holding the axis level to the floor again. Now I'm going to let go with my fingers....LOOK AT THAT! The loose end doesn't rotate down this time! Yes, it's precessing. But the
    precession is far less dramatic and far less interesting than the gravity-defying end of the gyro hanging there in mid air. The axis is absolutely level with the floor and no visible means of support.

    This MIT schiester thinks he has solved the riddle https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698
    I always felt it braced in space. Heavy to the tilt.
    You are suggesting it is braced tilted horizontal?
    I believe that is its natural gravitational orientation.
    If you tilt it all of the way and leave it alone
    it would remain horizontal.
    Mitch, I have just now realized the value of your term "braced in space" regarding the gyroscope. Brilliant. Now consider this: while there is "precession math" there exists no "braced math". And I defy any relativist to gainsay me in this matter.
    I predict one further thing. Where the rotation stops the gyroscope brace will go away
    and the hanging gyroscope will fall back to its vertical axis.
    Any rotation keeps the brace but without it it goes away.
    You predict this, Mitch? Ahem...say Mitch, what do you make of the Dzhanibekov Effect?


    What pushes the new flip? That starts over a little later?
    Is that a God push? You talked about another proof.
    I think so. Flip in space is another.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sun Nov 26 22:04:29 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:10:03 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 8:19:32 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:34:29 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:44:50 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:16:27 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:35:08 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:29:42 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    In astronomy if gravity slows down rotation
    where is the evidence?
    The age of the universe would show most
    objects should have already.
    But they all have significant rotations.

    Mitchell Raemsch
    Mitch, my man, somewhere I read that Mach's principle is the reason for inertia. One conclusion that can be drawn from Mach's principle is the concept of "rotational entropy" which can be understood as the requirement that 1) all
    local rotational motion is decreasing, and 2) mediated by Mach's principle, all local rotational motion is imparted to the total rotational motion of the entire universe. This transfer continues until such time as what may be considered the final
    rotational state of the universe, or "rotational heat death" pertains everywhere in the universe. So "rotation" as a definable state of motion, is no longer detectable.
    That would predict rotational chaos.
    And it does not exist.
    The universe as a whole does not have a center of which to rotate around.
    If mach predicted rotation to go away why hasn't it? That form of motion is not going away....

    The precession of the gyroscope is a piece of a posteriori synthetic knowledge which, while it can be precisely described by mathematical expressions, is an utter mystery as to why it occurs in the first place. The gravity-defying
    free end of a spinning gyroscope constitutes a perfectly consistent proof of the existence of God.
    Don't we push its rotation?
    The earth is not a gyroscope. Its turning cancels its primary G weight.
    There is more weight at the pole for the same energy/mass than
    at the rotating equator.
    A gyroscope gets braced in space by horizontal rotation weight.
    If it is tilted its rotation weight goes away.
    The gyroscopic phenomenon is epi-Newtonian and epi-Hamiltonian. We have no mechanics that fully describe it. There is no equation in mechanics that relates a force vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass to the gravitational
    field vector at the unsupported end of a rotating mass. And that is and end to it, Mitch.
    It is the orientation that changes the turning gyroscope weight in gravity.
    A turning wheel on the road will have almost no vertical rotation weight.
    Mitch, do you have a toy gyroscope? Get it out then post to me. We will perform a demonstration right here in this in real time.
    No I don't.
    I believe weight brace is going away where you tilt it.
    No worries Mitch. I have a wonderful toy gyroscope which I keep on the same shelf as my teddy bears. It weights almost two pounds, is over 6 inches in diameter, is enclosed in a plastic cover, and has a cranking port so I can really whip up
    the rpms.

    I have attached a string to the ceiling. I am now dangling the gyroscope from that string while holding the other end with my fingers. The axis is level and parallel with the floor. It is not spinning. Now I'm letting go with my fingers. The
    gyroscope rotated down 90 degrees so that it is now dangling from the ceiling with the axis now vertical to the floor--string end is high and the other end I held in my fingers is low. Now I'll bring the axis back up to level with the floor and spin up
    the gyro real good...

    Okay, the gyro is really humming! The string and my fingers are holding the axis level to the floor again. Now I'm going to let go with my fingers....LOOK AT THAT! The loose end doesn't rotate down this time! Yes, it's precessing. But the
    precession is far less dramatic and far less interesting than the gravity-defying end of the gyro hanging there in mid air. The axis is absolutely level with the floor and no visible means of support.

    This MIT schiester thinks he has solved the riddle https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698
    I always felt it braced in space. Heavy to the tilt.
    You are suggesting it is braced tilted horizontal?
    I believe that is its natural gravitational orientation.
    If you tilt it all of the way and leave it alone
    it would remain horizontal.
    Mitch, I have just now realized the value of your term "braced in space" regarding the gyroscope. Brilliant. Now consider this: while there is "precession math" there exists no "braced math". And I defy any relativist to gainsay me in this matter.

    I predict one further thing. Where the rotation stops the gyroscope brace will go away
    and the hanging gyroscope will fall back to its vertical axis.
    Any rotation keeps the brace but without it it goes away.
    You predict this, Mitch? Ahem...say Mitch, what do you make of the Dzhanibekov Effect?

    What pushes the new flip? That starts over a little later?
    Is that a God push? You talked about another proof.
    I think so. Flip in space is another.
    Now Mitch, take another look at the slo-mo. The rotation is always in the same direction, i.e., the angular momentum vector always points in the same direction of the universe. Also notice that the flip always occurs in a single revolution. If we had
    some Dzhanibekov math to work with, I will bet dollars to donuts that if you carefully work out the distribution of the moment of mass for that thing--or whatever they call it, the name escapes me at the moment--the angular momentum vector never deviates
    from it's direction even during the flip. Not even for a microsecond! So overpowering and absolute is the gyroscopic rule of directionality.

    Mitch, I have grown weary and desire to sleep. Please figure out the Dzhanibekov math we need to solve this riddle and post it by morning. There's a good chap. Good night....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to patdolan on Mon Nov 27 02:13:40 2023
    On 11/24/2023 12:16 AM, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:59:05 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

    If the gyroscope is spinning then the free end maintains it's z value when you remove your fingers from it. If the gyroscope is not spinning then the free end immediately falls to a minimum z value when you take your fingers away.

    Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case
    https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698

    The weight of the gyroscope is on the fixed end. If that is removed, it
    will fall. Its weight is the same whether the gyroscope is spinning or not.

    For a gyroscope whose axis is horizontal will have a torque applied to
    it since most of its mass isn't over the fixed end. That torque is
    countered by a torque created to keep the orientation the same
    (conservation of angular momentum) plus the additional torque at right
    angles to both causing the precession.

    Put another way, imagine a blind man who learned all of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. He understood them perfectly. But he had never laid eyes on a gyroscope (how could he?). There is no possible way that this man could deduce the
    laws of precession, much less the gravity defying-behavior of the free end of a gyroscope from his knowledge of mechanics.

    He could deduce precession if he understood the math predicting it, or
    perhaps could derive precession if he started with a rotating mass (or
    set of small masses moving in a circle/instantaneously moving in a line)
    and worked out the math that will lead to a precession.

    Also, there is no way that even the seeing man, even now can derive the fact that gyroscopes desire to permanently maintain their orientation to the universe

    And why not? The math isn't simple, but the math is understood.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Nov 26 23:48:11 2023
    On Monday, 27 November 2023 at 08:13:46 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

    He could deduce precession if he understood the math predicting it, or

    And speaking of math - it's always good to remind
    that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest,
    very important and succesful part false, as it didn't
    want to fit the madness of your idiot guru.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Nov 27 11:36:31 2023
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:13:46 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 11/24/2023 12:16 AM, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:59:05 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

    If the gyroscope is spinning then the free end maintains it's z value when you remove your fingers from it. If the gyroscope is not spinning then the free end immediately falls to a minimum z value when you take your fingers away.

    Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case
    https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698

    The weight of the gyroscope is on the fixed end. If that is removed, it
    will fall. Its weight is the same whether the gyroscope is spinning or not.

    For a gyroscope whose axis is horizontal will have a torque applied to
    it since most of its mass isn't over the fixed end. That torque is
    countered by a torque created to keep the orientation the same

    Now we are getting somewhere, Volroney. Let's call that second torque the "gyroscopic counter torque". I dare you Volroney, to derive the gyroscopic counter torque from first principles.

    (conservation of angular momentum) plus the additional torque at right angles to both causing the precession.

    Torque can not be the source of gyroscopic precession because the precession has a constant angular velocity. If torque were the cause of precession then the precession velocity would continue to increase to to the speed of light.

    Precession is an angular velocity that shows up instantaneously and is maintained by Father Soto Domingo's principle of inertia: An object in (circular) motion tends to remain in (circular) motion.


    Put another way, imagine a blind man who learned all of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. He understood them perfectly. But he had never laid eyes on a gyroscope (how could he?). There is no possible way that this man could deduce the
    laws of precession, much less the gravity defying-behavior of the free end of a gyroscope from his knowledge of mechanics.

    He could deduce precession if he understood the math predicting it, or perhaps could derive precession if he started with a rotating mass (or
    set of small masses moving in a circle/instantaneously moving in a line)
    and worked out the math that will lead to a precession.

    Also, there is no way that even the seeing man, even now can derive the fact that gyroscopes desire to permanently maintain their orientation to the universe

    And why not? The math isn't simple, but the math is understood.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 27 20:48:39 2023
    Den 24.11.2023 23:25, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 2:37:52 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
    As always, an opinionated asshole writing bullshit

    Explain this, Volney, about gyroscopes working in the ISS. Where is its main axis pointing?

    https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2016/03/Gyroscopes_in_space

    "There is no up or down in space. Satellites track their pointing direction using the same approach as on submarines and aircraft:
    fast-spinning gyroscopes that maintain a fixed orientation in the same way as a child’s spinning top. The International Space Station
    has four big gyroscopes which are used for stabilization of the station".

    Now apply something of this to galaxies rotation curves and dark matter (or another unknown physics effect).


    Also, observe: no precession in the gyro experiment done in the ISS, as it was shown in the ESA video.

    Explain that too, Volney.

    I am sure you sometime in your life have played with a spinning top.
    If the spin axis isn't exactly vertical, it does precess.

    If you spin it in the ISS, it will not precess regardless
    of the direction of its axis.

    What is the difference between the two cases, Richard? :-D

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Mon Nov 27 11:50:43 2023
    On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 11:46:30 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 24.11.2023 23:25, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 2:37:52 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
    As always, an opinionated asshole writing bullshit

    Explain this, Volney, about gyroscopes working in the ISS. Where is its main axis pointing?

    https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2016/03/Gyroscopes_in_space

    "There is no up or down in space. Satellites track their pointing direction using the same approach as on submarines and aircraft:
    fast-spinning gyroscopes that maintain a fixed orientation in the same way as a child’s spinning top. The International Space Station
    has four big gyroscopes which are used for stabilization of the station". >>
    Now apply something of this to galaxies rotation curves and dark matter (or another unknown physics effect).


    Also, observe: no precession in the gyro experiment done in the ISS, as it was shown in the ESA video.

    Explain that too, Volney.
    I am sure you sometime in your life have played with a spinning top.
    If the spin axis isn't exactly vertical, it does precess.

    If you spin it in the ISS, it will not precess regardless
    of the direction of its axis.

    What is the difference between the two cases, Richard? :-D

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    Wrong, professor Paul. The ISS gyroscope WILL precess. But only once per orbit. Just like a long, heavy pendulum.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 28 11:40:18 2023
    Den 27.11.2023 20:50, skrev patdolan:
    On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 11:46:30 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 24.11.2023 23:25, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 2:37:52 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>> As always, an opinionated asshole writing bullshit

    Explain this, Volney, about gyroscopes working in the ISS. Where is its main axis pointing?

    https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2016/03/Gyroscopes_in_space

    "There is no up or down in space. Satellites track their pointing direction using the same approach as on submarines and aircraft:
    fast-spinning gyroscopes that maintain a fixed orientation in the same way as a child’s spinning top. The International Space Station
    has four big gyroscopes which are used for stabilization of the station". >>>>
    Now apply something of this to galaxies rotation curves and dark matter (or another unknown physics effect).


    Also, observe: no precession in the gyro experiment done in the ISS, as it was shown in the ESA video.

    Explain that too, Volney.
    I am sure you sometime in your life have played with a spinning top.
    If the spin axis isn't exactly vertical, it does precess.

    If you spin it in the ISS, it will not precess regardless
    of the direction of its axis.

    What is the difference between the two cases, Richard? :-D

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Wrong, professor Paul. The ISS gyroscope WILL precess. But only once per orbit. Just like a long, heavy pendulum.

    OK, I will give you a challenge.

    The ISS will always face the same side towards the Earth,
    so it is rotating once per orbit.

    A gyro (or some object) is spinning in the ISS.
    At some time, the spin axis is perpendicular to ISS' velocity
    in the ECI-frame, and parallel to the surface of the Earth.
    (Or in any other _well defined direction_, if you prefer.)

    The challenge is to describe the motion of the spin axis
    as the ISS orbits the Earth once.

    Why do you call this motion "precession"?

    Second challenge:
    A long heavy pendulum is hanging under the ISS.
    A stable situation is that the pendulum is always
    pointing towards the centre of the Earth.

    Which forces are acting on the pendulum mass?
    Which forces are acting on the spinning gyro in the ISS?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Tue Nov 28 11:53:00 2023
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 2:38:09 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 27.11.2023 20:50, skrev patdolan:
    On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 11:46:30 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 24.11.2023 23:25, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 2:37:52 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>> As always, an opinionated asshole writing bullshit

    Explain this, Volney, about gyroscopes working in the ISS. Where is its main axis pointing?

    https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2016/03/Gyroscopes_in_space >>>>
    "There is no up or down in space. Satellites track their pointing direction using the same approach as on submarines and aircraft:
    fast-spinning gyroscopes that maintain a fixed orientation in the same way as a child’s spinning top. The International Space Station
    has four big gyroscopes which are used for stabilization of the station".

    Now apply something of this to galaxies rotation curves and dark matter (or another unknown physics effect).


    Also, observe: no precession in the gyro experiment done in the ISS, as it was shown in the ESA video.

    Explain that too, Volney.
    I am sure you sometime in your life have played with a spinning top.
    If the spin axis isn't exactly vertical, it does precess.

    If you spin it in the ISS, it will not precess regardless
    of the direction of its axis.

    What is the difference between the two cases, Richard? :-D

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Wrong, professor Paul. The ISS gyroscope WILL precess. But only once per orbit. Just like a long, heavy pendulum.
    OK, I will give you a challenge.

    The ISS will always face the same side towards the Earth,
    so it is rotating once per orbit.

    A gyro (or some object) is spinning in the ISS.
    At some time, the spin axis is perpendicular to ISS' velocity
    in the ECI-frame, and parallel to the surface of the Earth.
    (Or in any other _well defined direction_, if you prefer.)

    The challenge is to describe the motion of the spin axis
    as the ISS orbits the Earth once.

    Why do you call this motion "precession"?
    You are right. This is not precession. It is, as Mitch might put it, space-brace. Precession involves an applied torque which does not happen in the ISS example.

    Second challenge:
    A long heavy pendulum is hanging under the ISS.
    A stable situation is that the pendulum is always
    pointing towards the centre of the Earth.

    Which forces are acting on the pendulum mass?
    Neither the sun's gravitational field nor the earth's gravitational field exerts a force on the pendulum you discribe. Because the pendulum is in free fall around both. Only Mach's mysterious trans-universe space-brace field acts on the pendulum and
    the ISS gyroscope.

    Which forces are acting on the spinning gyro in the ISS?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 29 22:53:22 2023
    Den 28.11.2023 20:53, skrev patdolan:
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 2:38:09 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 27.11.2023 20:50, skrev patdolan:

    Wrong, professor Paul. The ISS gyroscope WILL precess. But only once per orbit. Just like a long, heavy pendulum.

    OK, I will give you a challenge.

    The ISS will always face the same side towards the Earth,
    so it is rotating once per orbit.

    A gyro (or some object) is spinning in the ISS.
    At some time, the spin axis is perpendicular to ISS' velocity
    in the ECI-frame, and parallel to the surface of the Earth.
    (Or in any other _well defined direction_, if you prefer.)

    The challenge is to describe the motion of the spin axis
    as the ISS orbits the Earth once.

    Why do you call this motion "precession"?

    You are right. This is not precession. It is, as Mitch might put it, space-brace. Precession involves an applied torque which does not happen in the ISS example.


    Second challenge:
    A long heavy pendulum is hanging under the ISS.
    A stable situation is that the pendulum is always
    pointing towards the centre of the Earth.

    Which forces are acting on the pendulum mass?

    Neither the sun's gravitational field nor the earth's gravitational field exerts a force on the pendulum you discribe. Because the pendulum is in free fall around both. Only Mach's mysterious trans-universe space-brace field acts on the pendulum and
    the ISS gyroscope.

    According to Newton:

    The gravitational force on any object with mass m is
    always GMm/r² pointing towards the centre of the Earth.
    If the object is free falling, the gravitational
    (coordinate) acceleration will be GM/r², pointing
    towards the centre of the Earth.

    The CG of ISS + pendulum is moving in circular orbit,
    which means that the acceleration is perpendicular to
    the velocity, so the acceleration ω²⋅r₀ is the centripetal
    acceleration which make the ISS move in circular orbit.
    The centripetal acceleration is equal to the gravitational
    acceleration:
    ω²⋅r₀ = GM/r₀² (1)
    where ω is the angular velocity off the ISS, and r₀ is the
    distance from the CG of ISS+pendulum to the centre of the Earth.

    Equation (1) say that an object with angular velocity ω
    must have a distance from the centre of the Earth:
    r₀ = ∛(GM/ω²) to make the centripetal acceleration equal
    to the gravitational acceleration.

    The pendulum mass m is not free falling because:

    Its distance to the centre of the Earth is:
    r₁ = r₀-L where L is the length of the pendulum.
    So r₁ < r₀, but the angular velocity of m is the same ω,
    and r₁ < ∛(GM/ω²), which means that:
    ω²⋅r₁ < GM/r₁² (2)
    The centripetal acceleration is smaller than the gravitational
    acceleration, so the force the string is acting on
    the pendulum mass is F₁ = m⋅(GM/r₁²-ω²⋅r₁)

    ---

    An interesting point is that you could have a pendulum
    on the other side of th ISS, pointing outwards from the
    centre of the Earth.
    The force the string is acting on the mass m is:
    F₂ = m⋅(ω²⋅r₂-GM/r₂²)

    F₁ and F₂ are called tidal forces.
    (It's a tidal bulge on both sides of the Earth)
    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to patdolan on Wed Nov 29 23:36:26 2023
    On 11/27/2023 2:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:13:46 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 11/24/2023 12:16 AM, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:59:05 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:

    If the gyroscope is spinning then the free end maintains it's z value when you remove your fingers from it. If the gyroscope is not spinning then the free end immediately falls to a minimum z value when you take your fingers away.

    Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case
    https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698

    The weight of the gyroscope is on the fixed end. If that is removed, it
    will fall. Its weight is the same whether the gyroscope is spinning or not. >>
    For a gyroscope whose axis is horizontal will have a torque applied to
    it since most of its mass isn't over the fixed end. That torque is
    countered by a torque created to keep the orientation the same

    Now we are getting somewhere, Volroney. Let's call that second torque the "gyroscopic counter torque". I dare you Volroney, to derive the gyroscopic counter torque from first principles.

    Conservation of angular momentum.

    (conservation of angular momentum) plus the additional torque at right
    angles to both causing the precession.

    Torque can not be the source of gyroscopic precession because the precession has a constant angular velocity. If torque were the cause of precession then the precession velocity would continue to increase to to the speed of light.

    The torque provided by gravity on the gyroscope's center of mass
    interacts with the angular velocity vector of the rotation to produce a (constant) precession angular velocity, not a torque. The precessional
    angular velocity is constant as long as the angular velocity of the
    gyroscope is constant.

    Precession is an angular velocity that shows up instantaneously and is maintained by Father Soto Domingo's principle of inertia: An object in (circular) motion tends to remain in (circular) motion.

    Yes but start a gyroscope spinning but stationary with a gravitational
    torque on its rotating mass, it will start precessing even if you
    initially hold it in a way to prevent precession.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Nov 29 21:03:44 2023
    On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:36:35 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 11/27/2023 2:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
    On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:13:46 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 11/24/2023 12:16 AM, patdolan wrote:
    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:59:05 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >>>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >>
    If the gyroscope is spinning then the free end maintains it's z value when you remove your fingers from it. If the gyroscope is not spinning then the free end immediately falls to a minimum z value when you take your fingers away.

    Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case
    https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698

    The weight of the gyroscope is on the fixed end. If that is removed, it >> will fall. Its weight is the same whether the gyroscope is spinning or not.

    For a gyroscope whose axis is horizontal will have a torque applied to
    it since most of its mass isn't over the fixed end. That torque is
    countered by a torque created to keep the orientation the same

    Now we are getting somewhere, Volroney. Let's call that second torque the "gyroscopic counter torque". I dare you Volroney, to derive the gyroscopic counter torque from first principles.
    Conservation of angular momentum.

    (conservation of angular momentum) plus the additional torque at right
    angles to both causing the precession.

    Torque can not be the source of gyroscopic precession because the precession has a constant angular velocity. If torque were the cause of precession then the precession velocity would continue to increase to to the speed of light.
    The torque provided by gravity on the gyroscope's center of mass
    interacts with the angular velocity vector of the rotation to produce a (constant) precession angular velocity, not a torque. The precessional angular velocity is constant as long as the angular velocity of the gyroscope is constant.

    Everyone knows this Volroney. But nobody knows why. Precession is a magic angular velocity. It harkens back to the impetus theory of Aristotle. Or perhaps the lines of force of Faraday's motor wherein the commuter is swept around in a circle by the
    progressing lines of magnetism generated in the stator.

    Please stop the echolalia of 200 years and give us something new. How are you doing on deriving the gyroscopic counter-torque from first principles? You will recall that the gyroscopic counter-torque is that torque generated opposite to the applied
    torque so as to exactly counteract it and keep the gyroscope from tipping over, no matter what weight or force we choose. The gyroscopic counter-torque know exactly how strong to be. Then it leaves a haunting orthogonal ghost of itself which we call
    precession.

    You actually thought you understood physics, Volroney. Then along comes the gyroscope.


    Precession is an angular velocity that shows up instantaneously and is maintained by Father Soto Domingo's principle of inertia: An object in (circular) motion tends to remain in (circular) motion.

    Yes but start a gyroscope spinning but stationary with a gravitational torque on its rotating mass, it will start precessing even if you
    initially hold it in a way to prevent precession.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to patdolan on Thu Nov 30 12:22:24 2023
    On 11/29/23 11:03 PM, patdolan wrote:
    [precession of a gyroscope] Everyone knows this Volroney. But
    nobody knows why.

    NONSENSE! You merely display your personal ignorance.

    Divide the gyroscope into many small masses, and apply F=ma to each. Be
    sure to include both the gravitational force on each, and the internal
    forces that keep it solid. For an appropriate orientation, precession
    pops out.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 1 13:22:27 2023
    Den 30.11.2023 21:12, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 at 22:51:11 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 28.11.2023 20:53, skrev patdolan:
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 2:38:09 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Second challenge:
    A long heavy pendulum is hanging under the ISS.
    A stable situation is that the pendulum is always
    pointing towards the centre of the Earth.

    Which forces are acting on the pendulum mass?


    Neither the sun's gravitational field nor the earth's gravitational field exerts a force on the pendulum you discribe. Because the pendulum is in free fall around both. Only Mach's mysterious trans-universe space-brace field acts on the pendulum and
    the ISS gyroscope.

    According to Newton:

    The gravitational force on any object with mass m is
    always GMm/r² pointing towards the centre of the Earth.
    If the object is free falling, the gravitational
    (coordinate) acceleration will be GM/r², pointing
    towards the centre of the Earth.

    The CG of ISS + pendulum is moving in circular orbit,
    which means that the acceleration is perpendicular to
    the velocity, so the acceleration ω²⋅r₀ is the centripetal
    acceleration which make the ISS move in circular orbit.
    The centripetal acceleration is equal to the gravitational
    acceleration:
    ω²⋅r₀ = GM/r₀² (1)
    where ω is the angular velocity off the ISS, and r₀ is the
    distance from the CG of ISS+pendulum to the centre of the Earth.

    Equation (1) say that an object with angular velocity ω
    must have a distance from the centre of the Earth:
    r₀ = ∛(GM/ω²) to make the centripetal acceleration equal
    to the gravitational acceleration.

    The pendulum mass m is not free falling because:

    Its distance to the centre of the Earth is:
    r₁ = r₀-L where L is the length of the pendulum.
    So r₁ < r₀, but the angular velocity of m is the same ω,
    and r₁ < ∛(GM/ω²), which means that:
    ω²⋅r₁ < GM/r₁² (2)
    The centripetal acceleration is smaller than the gravitational
    acceleration, so the force the string is acting on
    the pendulum mass is F₁ = m⋅(GM/r₁²-ω²⋅r₁)

    ---

    An interesting point is that you could have a pendulum
    on the other side of the ISS, pointing outwards from the
    centre of the Earth.
    The force the string is acting on the mass m is:
    F₂ = m⋅(ω²⋅r₂-GM/r₂²)

    F₁ and F₂ are called tidal forces.
    (It's a tidal bulge on both sides of the Earth)


    No comment, Pat?

    You claimed that there were no forces on the pendulum.
    I showed you that you could have a pendulum on both
    sides of the ISS, and the pendulum strings will exert
    forces on the pendulum masses, acting towards the ISS.

    And GR predicts the same!

    Do you realise that you were wrong, but won't admit it,
    so you ignore my post, hoping that nobody will notice
    your failure.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 2 12:39:43 2023
    Den 02.12.2023 03:34, skrev patdolan:
    On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 4:20:14 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 30.11.2023 21:12, skrev patdolan:
    On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 at 22:51:11 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> Den 28.11.2023 20:53, skrev patdolan:
    On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 2:38:09 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Second challenge:
    A long heavy pendulum is hanging under the ISS.
    A stable situation is that the pendulum is always
    pointing towards the centre of the Earth.

    Which forces are acting on the pendulum mass?


    Neither the sun's gravitational field nor the earth's gravitational field exerts a force on the pendulum you discribe. Because the pendulum is in free fall around both. Only Mach's mysterious trans-universe space-brace field acts on the pendulum
    and the ISS gyroscope.

    According to Newton:

    The gravitational force on any object with mass m is
    always GMm/r² pointing towards the centre of the Earth.
    If the object is free falling, the gravitational
    (coordinate) acceleration will be GM/r², pointing
    towards the centre of the Earth.

    The CG of ISS + pendulum is moving in circular orbit,
    which means that the acceleration is perpendicular to
    the velocity, so the acceleration ω²⋅r₀ is the centripetal
    acceleration which make the ISS move in circular orbit.
    The centripetal acceleration is equal to the gravitational
    acceleration:
    ω²⋅r₀ = GM/r₀² (1)
    where ω is the angular velocity off the ISS, and r₀ is the
    distance from the CG of ISS+pendulum to the centre of the Earth.

    Equation (1) say that an object with angular velocity ω
    must have a distance from the centre of the Earth:
    r₀ = ∛(GM/ω²) to make the centripetal acceleration equal
    to the gravitational acceleration.

    The pendulum mass m is not free falling because:

    Its distance to the centre of the Earth is:
    r₁ = r₀-L where L is the length of the pendulum.
    So r₁ < r₀, but the angular velocity of m is the same ω,
    and r₁ < ∛(GM/ω²), which means that:
    ω²⋅r₁ < GM/r₁² (2)
    The centripetal acceleration is smaller than the gravitational
    acceleration, so the force the string is acting on
    the pendulum mass is F₁ = m⋅(GM/r₁²-ω²⋅r₁)

    ---

    An interesting point is that you could have a pendulum
    on the other side of the ISS, pointing outwards from the
    centre of the Earth.
    The force the string is acting on the mass m is:
    F₂ = m⋅(ω²⋅r₂-GM/r₂²)

    F₁ and F₂ are called tidal forces.
    (It's a tidal bulge on both sides of the Earth)>> No comment, Pat?


    You claimed that there were no forces on the pendulum.
    I showed you that you could have a pendulum on both
    sides of the ISS, and the pendulum strings will exert
    forces on the pendulum masses, acting towards the ISS.

    And GR predicts the same!

    Do you realise that you were wrong, but won't admit it,
    so you ignore my post, hoping that nobody will notice
    your failure.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/


    Paul, I am happy to comment on the ISS pendulum problem. But first I would like to exploit my leverage over you in this matter. I will comment in a most shocking manner if you first agree to

    1) State to this forum that the source of the gyroscopic counter torque which exactly opposes any torque placed on a gyroscope to keep it from falling over, as it does when a torque is applied to a g-scope when it is not spinning, is a complete
    scientific mystery and has never been derived from first principles.

    and

    2) You stipulate that no matter what he types in this forum, Tom Roberts also does not understand the gyroscopic counter-torque.

    Do these two things and I will comment on your pendulum.

    I accept your capitulation.

    You make no attempt to defend your claim that no forces were
    acting on the pendulum mass. Instead of admitting that you
    were wrong, you are trying to escape in a most ridiculous way. :-D

    Case closed.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)