Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #624348 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-11-22 17:29 -0800 |
| Last post | 2023-11-23 12:27 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 87 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
What has stopped rotating? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-22 17:29 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-22 18:39 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-22 20:35 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-22 21:21 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-11-23 21:13 +0100
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-23 20:14 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-23 20:26 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-23 23:29 -0500
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-23 20:36 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-23 20:59 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-23 21:16 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-23 22:16 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-27 02:13 -0500
Re: What has stopped rotating? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 23:48 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-27 11:36 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-29 23:36 -0500
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-29 21:03 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-11-30 12:22 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-30 12:16 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-02 20:02 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Dearl Numerov Hasbulatov <veav@rvdlevom.lr> - 2023-11-27 20:11 +0000
Re: What has stopped rotating? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-24 13:17 -0500
Re: What has stopped rotating? Yoslan Beknazar Yuzbashev <vasv@eohlsyeu.vn> - 2023-11-24 18:32 +0000
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-24 12:59 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? Duan Turkestanov <nank@tautkvtd.nd> - 2023-11-24 20:40 +0000
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-24 13:18 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Baldemar Baburkin <bled@ebabrrkd.ad> - 2023-11-25 21:31 +0000
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-25 20:26 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? Russell Baibikov Dobrohotov <rlia@lvlsbkrs.ia> - 2023-11-26 11:50 +0000
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-11-26 13:30 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 15:43 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-11-26 14:09 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 19:27 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-12-02 12:17 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-02 18:19 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-12-02 19:59 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-02 22:29 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-12-02 22:01 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-03 00:24 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? Renato Tsval Dobrushkin <olta@snosnavl.vl> - 2023-12-03 11:25 +0000
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-03 14:34 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? Fabian Tzaregorodtsev Babayan <izab@sogfafrz.tb> - 2023-12-04 15:57 +0000
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-12-03 14:21 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-03 19:38 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-12-03 21:03 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-04 14:40 -0500
Re: What has stopped rotating? Brennon Bestuzhev Ryumin <znhb@bseeuntz.rn> - 2023-12-04 21:48 +0000
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-04 18:40 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? Buck Musatov <sckv@cuvvtsmb.cs> - 2023-11-24 14:15 +0000
Re: What has stopped rotating? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-11-24 09:37 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-11-24 14:25 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-11-27 20:48 +0100
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-27 11:50 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-11-28 11:40 +0100
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-28 11:53 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-11-29 22:53 +0100
Re: What has stopped rotating? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-30 11:00 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-30 12:12 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-12-01 13:22 +0100
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-12-01 18:34 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-12-02 12:39 +0100
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-12-02 11:00 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-12-02 11:08 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-12-02 15:23 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-02 18:23 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-12-02 20:02 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-02 22:35 -0600
Re: What has stopped rotating? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-12-04 18:27 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? Emilio Marchanukov <kmlo@iommueml.om> - 2023-11-24 16:26 +0000
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-11-24 10:47 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-11-24 10:49 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-24 17:53 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-24 18:16 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-24 19:10 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-24 19:44 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-11-24 21:23 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-24 21:28 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-11-24 23:12 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-11-25 00:10 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-24 21:34 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-26 08:19 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 11:10 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-26 16:45 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 16:58 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-26 22:04 -0800
Re: What has stopped rotating? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-11-23 10:05 +0100
Re: What has stopped rotating? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-11-23 12:27 +0200
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-02 12:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <TFEaN.69$jvHa.22@fx07.ams4> |
| In reply to | #624927 |
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/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-02 11:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <656B7ED6.4A7D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #624947 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > 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⋅râ‚€ is the centripetal > >>>>> acceleration which make the ISS move in circular orbit. > >>>>> The centripetal acceleration is equal to the gravitational > >>>>> acceleration: > >>>>> ω²⋅râ‚€ = GM/r₀² (1) > >>>>> where ω is the angular velocity off the ISS, and râ‚€ 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: > >>>>> râ‚€ = ∛(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: > >>>>> râ‚ = râ‚€-L where L is the length of the pendulum. > >>>>> So râ‚ < râ‚€, but the angular velocity of m is the same ω, > >>>>> and râ‚ < ∛(GM/ω²), which means that: > >>>>> ω²⋅râ‚ < GM/r₲ (2) > >>>>> The centripetal acceleration is smaller than the gravitational > >>>>> acceleration, so the force the string is acting on > >>>>> the pendulum mass is Fâ‚ = mâ‹…(GM/r₲-ω²⋅râ‚) > >>>>> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> > >>>>> 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: > >>>>> Fâ‚‚ = mâ‹…(ω²⋅râ‚‚-GM/r₂²) > >>>>> > >>>>> Fâ‚ and Fâ‚‚ 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. Since our moon revolves around our sun...our moon is in fact a planet. You can call it a dwarf planet and even a satelitte planet. But, it is still a planet by defintion of a planet! There are more planet moons than there are any other type of planets in our solar system. i heard nasa is going to land on planet moon next year, is that true? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-02 11:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f71f0ab-b2a9-494c-97cc-02abd0c9f464n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624964 |
On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 11:00:22 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > 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. > Since our moon revolves around our sun...our moon is in fact a planet. You are dumb. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-02 15:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d072d773-a49e-446d-aabe-da9b7e9b010en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624964 |
On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 1:00:22 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote: > Since our moon revolves around our sun...our moon is in fact a planet. > You can call it a dwarf planet and even a satelitte planet. But, it is > still a planet by defintion of a planet! Satellites are specifically excluded from being categorized as "planet", "dwarf planet", or "Small Solar System Body" https://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf That being said, 'The Universe does not like to be put in “boxes” ', and there will always be ambiguity and room for debate. So there is no point in your trying to adopt a contrarian position simply to prove whatever point it is that you are trying to prove.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-02 18:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ukghq8$29dle$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #624964 |
On 12/2/2023 1:00 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > i heard nasa is going to land on planet moon next year, is that true? > > > With last of the pre-Reagan scientists dying off, NASA fears the know-how will get lost in the hands of post-Reagan "engineers". I don't see a single other reason for doing that nonsense stuff all over again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-02 20:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <656BFDEE.2079@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #624978 |
Physfitfreak wrote: > > On 12/2/2023 1:00 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > i heard nasa is going to land on planet moon next year, is that true? > > > > > > > > With last of the pre-Reagan scientists dying off, NASA fears the > know-how will get lost in the hands of post-Reagan "engineers". I don't > see a single other reason for doing that nonsense stuff all over again. maybe they are investigating what is that hollow sound? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-02 22:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ukh0i8$299jd$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #624984 |
On 12/2/2023 10:02 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Physfitfreak wrote: >> >> On 12/2/2023 1:00 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>> >>> i heard nasa is going to land on planet moon next year, is that true? >>> >>> >>> >> >> With last of the pre-Reagan scientists dying off, NASA fears the >> know-how will get lost in the hands of post-Reagan "engineers". I don't >> see a single other reason for doing that nonsense stuff all over again. > > maybe they are investigating what is that hollow sound? > > > They want to eat up your money, and what they say they do all that for is to legitimize their eating up of your money. The only sense, that exists, in doing that stuff all over again is to revive and maintain the knowledge before it is lost. With this way U.S. government is going, such knowledge, if lost, may not come back again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-12-04 18:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <489e7272-178d-46da-823b-20d679962d47n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624908 |
On Friday, 1 December 2023 at 13:20:14 UTC+1, 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! Learn your Shit, poor halfbrain. No, it doesn't. It predicts no force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emilio Marchanukov <kmlo@iommueml.om> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-24 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ujqir4$25275$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #624419 |
patdolan wrote: > 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 you can do that, with light gyros. https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/ 𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻_𝗨𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗶𝗹𝘀_‘𝗞𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝗜’_𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗖𝗮𝗻_𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆_𝗞𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗚𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀_𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗚𝗼𝘃𝘁’𝘀_𝗧𝗼_𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹_𝗙𝗼𝗼𝗱_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗚𝗠_𝗙𝗼𝗼𝗱_𝗧𝗼_𝗙𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁_‘𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹_𝗕𝗼𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴’ 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿_𝗨𝗦_𝗧𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗣𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱_𝗙𝗼𝗿_𝗥𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗖𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗝𝗮𝗯𝘀,_𝗦𝘂𝗲_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗙𝗼𝗿_𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀_𝗜𝗻_𝗟𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗪𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗡𝗲𝘂𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗻_𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗸_𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻_𝗖𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗝𝗮𝗯𝘀,_𝗕𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻_𝗗𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲_&_𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿_𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀 𝗞𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗲𝘀_𝗜𝘀_𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗹𝘆_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘀_𝗢𝗳_𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗱_𝗖𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗡𝗛𝗦_𝗧𝗼𝗹𝗱_𝗧𝗼_𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗧𝗼𝗱𝗱𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗽𝗼𝘅_𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸_𝗭𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴_𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗪𝗘𝗙_𝗧𝗼_𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗕𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦_𝗼𝗳_𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗶𝗻_‘𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹_𝗚𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗴𝘀’ 𝗙𝗕𝗜_𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗠𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿_𝗔𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁:_‘𝗣𝗶𝘇𝘇𝗮𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗲_𝗜𝘀_𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹’ 𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗝𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲𝘆_𝗔𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀_𝗧𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹_𝗕𝗔𝗡_𝗼𝗻_𝗚𝗮𝘀_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝘀_𝗧𝗼_𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗪𝗘𝗙’𝘀_𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-24 10:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6560EFA7.4DE1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #624419 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-24 10:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6560F024.5FBE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #624419 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-24 17:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b1d25ad1-2353-46f7-8428-423543179c55n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624358 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-24 18:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f8c92d8-5152-4b22-b6d5-92c56a22705an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624495 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-24 19:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f4370e6e-c37f-4b17-9ded-34e272828418n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624497 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-24 19:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e63dafd2-ad6e-41c8-918e-7e4491cea814n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624499 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-24 21:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <656184D4.2AA5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #624502 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-24 21:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <775af474-5ada-4c38-8451-ff057a48ac15n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624506 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-24 23:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <65619E53.59F9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #624507 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-25 00:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6561AC0E.571D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #624515 |
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 Anschütz-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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-24 21:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d9a7e045-5a1f-480d-b501-cc67f7ad9ccen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624502 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web