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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Volney wrote:

> 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.

not true. You mostly mean perpendicular on the gravity force. But there
the x-y axis will show exactly ZERO in force, me friend. US=NATO, Russia
has 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 3 NATO European militaries 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_$300_𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻_𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴, I
dare you!

but we need 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺. No s𝗮𝗻𝗲_𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗿 (troupes!!) will fight to death for
the riches of 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗱 khazar goy 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁. We need equal rights in
wealth and everything. Otherwise, fuck youuu. Including Russia, you gonna
stink. My friend??

𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻_𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢’𝘀_‘𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗻’_𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻
The move is another escalation of the US-led alliance’s confrontation with
Russia, spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said
https://r%74.com/russia/587903-kremlin--nato-military-schengen/

Oh the irony of it all... Now as I recall people in Germany, Poland,
Hungary, Romania and other ex USSR satellites regularly denounced how
soviet bases were permanently based in the country and occupied by soviet
troops... Now guess what ? NATO doing the same thing !!!!!!!! How ironical
indeed that these fools like the Poles and the Baltic countries or the
Romanians and the Bulgars can't smell the coffee. It means the end of
their sovereignty and existence as countries.

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

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).

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.

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.
>
> 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.

we are friends. Thank you.

𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲_–_𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗱
The media outlet claims Berlin and Washington are providing Kiev with just
enough weapons to hold the line, but not to regain ground
https://r%74.com/news/587927-bild-germany-us-ukraine-weapons-peace-plan/

how can you hope to "force " Zelensky to a peace agreement when you know
he has 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲_𝗶𝘁_𝗮_𝗟𝗔𝗪_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲? AH, you forgot already ! That's happen
when 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 try to talk about " force". Yet
all their current effort to send billions of Dollars worth of military
equipment to fight and win against Russia ended up in vain. The West makes
itself a laughable incapable Group of 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗲𝘀.

How can Washington be hoping to force Zelensky to peace, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁'𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗵𝗼
𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝘀 way back when it was on the table. 𝗪𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗻
𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻'𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲, they wanted to hurt Russia even if it killed Ukraine.

A 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼𝗴𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗯𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝘃𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱.
And now they are going to sue for peace with Russia. Forget about the
losses of Ukraine. Now that's leaving Ukraine to hold the bag. So sad. So
pathetic. It is not Ukraine's conflict. But they allowed themselves to be
cannon fodders. Now, their country is no more.

how about the 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁 of bombing european 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗽𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 on the
bottom of the sea, by 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼, norway and america??

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.

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.

On 11/24/2023 12:32 PM, Yoslan Beknazar Yuzbashev wrote:
> 𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲_–_𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗱

Hehe :) What a moron you are, Hanson.

The above, should read, "Zelensky is begging US and Germany to allow
peace."

You were a moron under your "Hanson"s nickname, you're a moron now under
your funny nicknames.

Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 11/24/2023 12:32 PM, Yoslan Beknazar Yuzbashev wrote:
>> 𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗵𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝘁𝗼_𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲_–_𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗱
>
> Hehe What a moron you are, Hanson.
> The above, should read, "Zelensky is begging US and Germany to allow
> peace."

piss off.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲_𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗻_𝗦𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_2022_–_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃'𝘀_𝘁𝗼𝗽_𝗠𝗣
David Arakhamia led Kiev’s delegation in the talks with Moscow
https://r%74.com/russia/587945-ukraine-war-could-be-over/

During the talks, Arakhamia added, British PM Boris Johnson arrived in
Kiev and told the Ukrainian authorities to keep fighting and not sign any
agreements with Moscow.

𝗘𝗖𝗕_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳_𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀_𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆’𝘀_𝗰𝗿𝘆𝗽𝘁𝗼_𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀
Christine Lagarde says her son has been investing in digital assets
despite her openly expressed stance against cryptocurrencies
https://r%74.com/business/587923-ecb-lagarde-crypto-losses/

Her son wasn't investing. He 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴. And speculation is theft, so
all is fine - 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗱

“It wasn’t a lot but he lost it all, about 60% of it." - 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗽𝗶𝗱, 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁
𝗞𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁?

Some of her Top 10 hits include:
- We will apply a total ban on all Russian products, but we will continue
buying natural gas
- My husband is totally straight, but he likes men
- We oppose illegal immigration, unless they enter the country illegally

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.

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.