On 11/27/2023 2:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:13:46 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 11/24/2023 12:16 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:59:05 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>>>> If the gyroscope is spinning then the free end maintains it's z value when you remove your fingers from it. If the gyroscope is not spinning then the free end immediately falls to a minimum z value when you take your fingers away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case
>>>> https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698
>>
>> The weight of the gyroscope is on the fixed end. If that is removed, it
>> will fall. Its weight is the same whether the gyroscope is spinning or not.
>>
>> For a gyroscope whose axis is horizontal will have a torque applied to
>> it since most of its mass isn't over the fixed end. That torque is
>> countered by a torque created to keep the orientation the same
>
> Now we are getting somewhere, Volroney. Let's call that second torque the "gyroscopic counter torque". I dare you Volroney, to derive the gyroscopic counter torque from first principles.

Conservation of angular momentum.
>
>> (conservation of angular momentum) plus the additional torque at right
>> angles to both causing the precession.
>
> Torque can not be the source of gyroscopic precession because the precession has a constant angular velocity. If torque were the cause of precession then the precession velocity would continue to increase to to the speed of light.

The torque provided by gravity on the gyroscope's center of mass
interacts with the angular velocity vector of the rotation to produce a
(constant) precession angular velocity, not a torque. The precessional
angular velocity is constant as long as the angular velocity of the
gyroscope is constant.
>
> Precession is an angular velocity that shows up instantaneously and is maintained by Father Soto Domingo's principle of inertia: An object in (circular) motion tends to remain in (circular) motion.
>
Yes but start a gyroscope spinning but stationary with a gravitational
torque on its rotating mass, it will start precessing even if you
initially hold it in a way to prevent precession.

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 8:36:35 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 11/27/2023 2:36 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:13:46 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 11/24/2023 12:16 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:59:05 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> If the gyroscope is spinning then the free end maintains it's z value when you remove your fingers from it. If the gyroscope is not spinning then the free end immediately falls to a minimum z value when you take your fingers away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tell this forum, if you can, the source of the force opposing gravity in the former case
> >>>> https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI?si=OnAfXs6N_jn0LoM3&t=1698
> >>
> >> The weight of the gyroscope is on the fixed end. If that is removed, it
> >> will fall. Its weight is the same whether the gyroscope is spinning or not.
> >>
> >> For a gyroscope whose axis is horizontal will have a torque applied to
> >> it since most of its mass isn't over the fixed end. That torque is
> >> countered by a torque created to keep the orientation the same
> >
> > Now we are getting somewhere, Volroney. Let's call that second torque the "gyroscopic counter torque". I dare you Volroney, to derive the gyroscopic counter torque from first principles.
> Conservation of angular momentum.
> >
> >> (conservation of angular momentum) plus the additional torque at right
> >> angles to both causing the precession.
> >
> > Torque can not be the source of gyroscopic precession because the precession has a constant angular velocity. If torque were the cause of precession then the precession velocity would continue to increase to to the speed of light.
> The torque provided by gravity on the gyroscope's center of mass
> interacts with the angular velocity vector of the rotation to produce a
> (constant) precession angular velocity, not a torque. The precessional
> angular velocity is constant as long as the angular velocity of the
> gyroscope is constant.

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

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

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

> >
> > Precession is an angular velocity that shows up instantaneously and is maintained by Father Soto Domingo's principle of inertia: An object in (circular) motion tends to remain in (circular) motion.
> >
> Yes but start a gyroscope spinning but stationary with a gravitational
> torque on its rotating mass, it will start precessing even if you
> initially hold it in a way to prevent precession.

On 11/29/23 11:03 PM, patdolan wrote:
> [precession of a gyroscope] Everyone knows this Volroney. But
> nobody knows why.

NONSENSE! You merely display your personal ignorance.

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

Tom Roberts

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:
> >> Den 27.11.2023 20:50, skrev patdolan:
> >>
> >>> Wrong, professor Paul. The ISS gyroscope WILL precess. But only once per orbit. Just like a long, heavy pendulum.
>
> >> OK, I will give you a challenge.
> >>
> >> The ISS will always face the same side towards the Earth,
> >> so it is rotating once per orbit.
> >>
> >> A gyro (or some object) is spinning in the ISS.
> >> At some time, the spin axis is perpendicular to ISS' velocity
> >> in the ECI-frame, and parallel to the surface of the Earth.
> >> (Or in any other _well defined direction_, if you prefer.)
> >>
> >> The challenge is to describe the motion of the spin axis
> >> as the ISS orbits the Earth once.
> >>
> >> Why do you call this motion "precession"?
>
> > You are right. This is not precession. It is, as Mitch might put it, space-brace. Precession involves an applied torque which does not happen in the ISS example.
>
> >>
> >> Second challenge:
> >> A long heavy pendulum is hanging under the ISS.
> >> A stable situation is that the pendulum is always
> >> pointing towards the centre of the Earth.
> >>
> >> Which forces are acting on the pendulum mass?
>
> > Neither the sun's gravitational field nor the earth's gravitational field exerts a force on the pendulum you discribe. Because the pendulum is in free fall around both. Only Mach's mysterious trans-universe space-brace field acts on the pendulum and the ISS gyroscope.
> According to Newton:
>
> The gravitational force on any object with mass m is
> always GMm/r² pointing towards the centre of the Earth.

Learn your Shit, poor halfbrain, there is no
gravitational force.

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 11:00:45 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 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:
> > >> Den 27.11.2023 20:50, skrev patdolan:
> > >>
> > >>> Wrong, professor Paul. The ISS gyroscope WILL precess. But only once per orbit. Just like a long, heavy pendulum.
> >
> > >> OK, I will give you a challenge.
> > >>
> > >> The ISS will always face the same side towards the Earth,
> > >> so it is rotating once per orbit.
> > >>
> > >> A gyro (or some object) is spinning in the ISS.
> > >> At some time, the spin axis is perpendicular to ISS' velocity
> > >> in the ECI-frame, and parallel to the surface of the Earth.
> > >> (Or in any other _well defined direction_, if you prefer.)
> > >>
> > >> The challenge is to describe the motion of the spin axis
> > >> as the ISS orbits the Earth once.
> > >>
> > >> Why do you call this motion "precession"?
> >
> > > You are right. This is not precession. It is, as Mitch might put it, space-brace. Precession involves an applied torque which does not happen in the ISS example.
> >
> > >>
> > >> Second challenge:
> > >> A long heavy pendulum is hanging under the ISS.
> > >> A stable situation is that the pendulum is always
> > >> pointing towards the centre of the Earth.
> > >>
> > >> Which forces are acting on the pendulum mass?
> >
> > > Neither the sun's gravitational field nor the earth's gravitational field exerts a force on the pendulum you discribe. Because the pendulum is in free fall around both. Only Mach's mysterious trans-universe space-brace field acts on the pendulum and the ISS gyroscope.
> > According to Newton:
> >
> > The gravitational force on any object with mass m is
> > always GMm/r² pointing towards the centre of the Earth.
> Learn your Shit, poor halfbrain, there is no
> gravitational force.
Nicely played sir, nicely played!

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 10:22:37 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/29/23 11:03 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > [precession of a gyroscope] Everyone knows this Volroney. But
> > nobody knows why.
>
> NONSENSE! You merely display your personal ignorance.
>
> Divide the gyroscope into many small masses, and apply F=ma to each. Be
> sure to include both the gravitational force on each, and the internal
> forces that keep it solid. For an appropriate orientation, precession
> pops out.
>
> Tom Roberts

Now fiddle us a tune about the counter-torque, a.k.a Mitch's bracing torque.. Everyone knows that it is easy to tip a gyroscope over when it is not spinning. The counter-torque is that torque which exactly matches the applied torque and keeps the gyroscope from tipping over. It only appears when the gyroscope is spinning.

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/

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.

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/

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 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.

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 11/26/2023 4:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/26/2023 3:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/25/2023 3:31 PM, Baldemar Baburkin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Piss off Hanson.
> >>>
> >>> where did you get the idea dat dis guy name is Hanson?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> By detecting the same character in him. And some of the same idiotic
> >> terminologies. He thinks he's smart.
> >
> > are you sayin that there is someone posting on usenet with the
> > handle...Hanson?
> >
> >
>
> You don't remember the garbage he was posting?

Looking for garbage in these newsgroups is like searching for a needle
in a haystack of needles.

The French guy????

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

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.

On 12/2/2023 2:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 11/26/2023 4:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/26/2023 3:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/25/2023 3:31 PM, Baldemar Baburkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Piss off Hanson.
>>>>>
>>>>> where did you get the idea dat dis guy name is Hanson?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By detecting the same character in him. And some of the same idiotic
>>>> terminologies. He thinks he's smart.
>>>
>>> are you sayin that there is someone posting on usenet with the
>>> handle...Hanson?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You don't remember the garbage he was posting?
>
>
>
> Looking for garbage in these newsgroups is like searching for a needle
> in a haystack of needles.
>
>
> The French guy????
>
>

He posted under the nickname "Hanson." All garbage stuff, just to troll
others. Did it for at least two decades!

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.

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 12/2/2023 2:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/26/2023 4:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/26/2023 3:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 11/25/2023 3:31 PM, Baldemar Baburkin wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Piss off Hanson.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> where did you get the idea dat dis guy name is Hanson?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> By detecting the same character in him. And some of the same idiotic
> >>>> terminologies. He thinks he's smart.
> >>>
> >>> are you sayin that there is someone posting on usenet with the
> >>> handle...Hanson?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> You don't remember the garbage he was posting?
> >
> >
> >
> > Looking for garbage in these newsgroups is like searching for a needle
> > in a haystack of needles.
> >
> >
> > The French guy????
> >
> >
>
> He posted under the nickname "Hanson." All garbage stuff, just to troll
> others. Did it for at least two decades!

isn't he dead?

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

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.

On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 10:22:37 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/29/23 11:03 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > [precession of a gyroscope] Everyone knows this Volroney. But
> > nobody knows why.
>
> NONSENSE! You merely display your personal ignorance.
>
> Divide the gyroscope into many small masses, and apply F=ma to each. Be
> sure to include both the gravitational force on each, and the internal
> forces that keep it solid. For an appropriate orientation, precession
> pops out.
>
> Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts, you damed fool. Take a look at this lovely video animating your argument for gravity-defying precession. https://youtu.be/YiQVna7UTiQ?si=b5hEREZ4Jdych72g&t=715

The first thing to realized is that the masses NEVER come to a momentary rest in actual, real world gyroscopic precession. This is because the weights [sic] make hundreds or thousands of revolutions for each orbit of precession. In order to get his weights to make those cycloid freezes, your hero has the weights making about five revolutions for every single orbit of precession. Preposterous. So the fundamental assumption of the proof you proffered to this forum is wrong. Apologize.

Furthermore, have you ever constructed a two-weight gyroscope or spinning top? I thought not. Neither has your boy-wonder in the video, I'm sure. Not much of an experimentalist, are you Tom Roberts. And neither is that video clown-boy. All animations, all the time he. You can make any physics work in the anime world. Even special and general relativity. Try out his gyro s#&+ with a real two-weight spinning top sometime. What a couple of chumps you two make. I reiterate, apologize.

On 12/2/2023 9:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 12/2/2023 2:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/26/2023 4:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/26/2023 3:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2023 3:31 PM, Baldemar Baburkin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Piss off Hanson.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> where did you get the idea dat dis guy name is Hanson?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By detecting the same character in him. And some of the same idiotic
>>>>>> terminologies. He thinks he's smart.
>>>>>
>>>>> are you sayin that there is someone posting on usenet with the
>>>>> handle...Hanson?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't remember the garbage he was posting?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking for garbage in these newsgroups is like searching for a needle
>>> in a haystack of needles.
>>>
>>>
>>> The French guy????
>>>
>>>
>>
>> He posted under the nickname "Hanson." All garbage stuff, just to troll
>> others. Did it for at least two decades!
>
> isn't he dead?
>
>

I hope he was, but I'm afraid not. Pests are never welcome. So he at
last learned something (took 20 years for him) and stopped being a
Hanson anymore, but reappeared now in this role that you see. Making
sure everybody gets his messages by automatically changing his nickname,
and at the same time giving the bullshit he posts as legitimate reasons
to be around and post. In other words, he's still a pest.

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.

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 12/2/2023 9:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/2/2023 2:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/26/2023 4:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 11/26/2023 3:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/25/2023 3:31 PM, Baldemar Baburkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Piss off Hanson.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> where did you get the idea dat dis guy name is Hanson?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> By detecting the same character in him. And some of the same idiotic
> >>>>>> terminologies. He thinks he's smart.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> are you sayin that there is someone posting on usenet with the
> >>>>> handle...Hanson?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't remember the garbage he was posting?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Looking for garbage in these newsgroups is like searching for a needle
> >>> in a haystack of needles.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The French guy????
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> He posted under the nickname "Hanson." All garbage stuff, just to troll
> >> others. Did it for at least two decades!
> >
> > isn't he dead?
> >
> >
>
> I hope he was, but I'm afraid not. Pests are never welcome. So he at
> last learned something (took 20 years for him) and stopped being a
> Hanson anymore, but reappeared now in this role that you see. Making
> sure everybody gets his messages by automatically changing his nickname,
> and at the same time giving the bullshit he posts as legitimate reasons
> to be around and post. In other words, he's still a pest.

I'm sorry, but I think you are mistaken. That is not Hanson M.O.

Hanson would never 'automatically changing his nickname', Hanson is not
a Coward.

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

On 12/3/2023 12:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 12/2/2023 9:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/2/2023 2:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/26/2023 4:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2023 3:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2023 3:31 PM, Baldemar Baburkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Piss off Hanson.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> where did you get the idea dat dis guy name is Hanson?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By detecting the same character in him. And some of the same idiotic
>>>>>>>> terminologies. He thinks he's smart.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are you sayin that there is someone posting on usenet with the
>>>>>>> handle...Hanson?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't remember the garbage he was posting?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking for garbage in these newsgroups is like searching for a needle
>>>>> in a haystack of needles.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The French guy????
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He posted under the nickname "Hanson." All garbage stuff, just to troll
>>>> others. Did it for at least two decades!
>>>
>>> isn't he dead?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I hope he was, but I'm afraid not. Pests are never welcome. So he at
>> last learned something (took 20 years for him) and stopped being a
>> Hanson anymore, but reappeared now in this role that you see. Making
>> sure everybody gets his messages by automatically changing his nickname,
>> and at the same time giving the bullshit he posts as legitimate reasons
>> to be around and post. In other words, he's still a pest.
>
> I'm sorry, but I think you are mistaken. That is not Hanson M.O.
>
>
> Hanson would never 'automatically changing his nickname', Hanson is not
> a Coward.
>
>
>

He doesn't change his nicknames for the purpose of staying hidden, he
changes them to escape the kill-files. He wants his sick menace to reach
everyone in the newsgroups that he posts. The guy's Hanson :) The
"HAHAHAHA" guy. Loser then, loser now.

putrid asshole Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 12/3/2023 12:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶ w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ 'a̶u̶t̶o̶m̶a̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶i̶n̶g̶ h̶i̶s̶ n̶i̶c̶k̶n̶a̶m̶e̶', H̶a̶n̶s̶o̶n̶ i̶s̶ n̶o̶t̶
>> a̶ C̶o̶w̶a̶r̶d̶.
>
> H̶e̶ d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'t̶ c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ h̶i̶s̶ n̶i̶c̶k̶n̶a̶m̶e̶s̶ f̶o̶r̶ t̶h̶e̶ p̶u̶r̶p̶o̶s̶e̶ o̶f̶ s̶t̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ h̶i̶d̶d̶e̶n̶, h̶e̶

you two, 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 sacks of subhuman excrement, have
𝗮𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗸 from both hanson and everybody else. It's obvious. You
don't know 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗶𝘀, fucking stoopid. You think it's
something else.

‘𝗪𝗲_𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗯𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗯𝗮𝗱_𝗻𝗲𝘄𝘀’_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳
https://r%74.com/news/588418-nato-chief-stoltenberg-ukraine-bad-news/

Yes Ukraine and NATO will have to agree to an unconditional surrender and
the first demand will be 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀.

Who are we? And why we must do this nazi shit?

NATO should be disbanded and left on the trash bin of history. Along with
Ukraine.

Look at that well-fed, rich little man in his little suit : he feels
entitled to decree the battlefield death of thousands of Russians and
Ukrainians. No one should be allowed to head a military alliance like
𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗡𝗔𝗧O without having gone into combat and witnessed the horrors of
war for at least two or three tours.

USA, thus NATO, is like e𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. I was again convinced of
this after Irak and Libya.

On 12/3/2023 5:25 AM, Renato Tsval Dobrushkin wrote:
> USA, thus NATO, is like e𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. I was again convinced of
> this after Irak and Libya.

Which means, you were too dumb to get convinced of that decades earlier.

Why don't you mind your own shortcomings for a change, "Hanson"?

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 12/3/2023 12:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/2/2023 9:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/2/2023 2:17 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 11/26/2023 4:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/26/2023 3:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2023 3:31 PM, Baldemar Baburkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Piss off Hanson.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> where did you get the idea dat dis guy name is Hanson?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> By detecting the same character in him. And some of the same idiotic
> >>>>>>>> terminologies. He thinks he's smart.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> are you sayin that there is someone posting on usenet with the
> >>>>>>> handle...Hanson?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You don't remember the garbage he was posting?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking for garbage in these newsgroups is like searching for a needle
> >>>>> in a haystack of needles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The French guy????
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> He posted under the nickname "Hanson." All garbage stuff, just to troll
> >>>> others. Did it for at least two decades!
> >>>
> >>> isn't he dead?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I hope he was, but I'm afraid not. Pests are never welcome. So he at
> >> last learned something (took 20 years for him) and stopped being a
> >> Hanson anymore, but reappeared now in this role that you see. Making
> >> sure everybody gets his messages by automatically changing his nickname,
> >> and at the same time giving the bullshit he posts as legitimate reasons
> >> to be around and post. In other words, he's still a pest.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I think you are mistaken. That is not Hanson M.O.
> >
> >
> > Hanson would never 'automatically changing his nickname', Hanson is not
> > a Coward.
> >
> >
> >
>
> He doesn't change his nicknames for the purpose of staying hidden, he
> changes them to escape the kill-files. He wants his sick menace to reach
> everyone in the newsgroups that he posts. The guy's Hanson :) The
> "HAHAHAHA" guy. Loser then, loser now.

Not only that the poster doesn't have the same MO, he doesn't have the
same fingerprint, style, personality...
....where is the "HAHAHAHA"?

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

On 12/3/2023 4:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>
> ...where is the "HAHAHAHA"?
>

You don't know where the HAHAHAHA is?

Check Vulva's vulva; you'll find a folded piece of paper stuck inside.
You'll pull it out. You'll get your eyeglasses sit tight, then you'll
unfold it and read the following script on it:

" - Go to Göbekli Tepe, Turkey.
- Go to the rainwater harvesting system built by those neolithic men
- Urinate into only the first such grooves carved into stone
- Follow it, see where your urine moving through the grove stops
- You'll see a hole there in the stone, about your finger's diameter
- Get one of your eyes close to its opening and try seeing inside
- Nothing seen? Stick your middle finger of your left hand inside
- Nothing felt? Put your ear on the opening
- You'll hear, "ZABANG!" as if someone farted
- Then you'll hear, "HAHAHAHA!"

- My name is Alan Folmsbee "

And that's where the HAHAHAHA is.

Fold the paper back and put it inside the vulva of Vulva. And come back
to sci.physics. Well done.