1. All angular momentum has a "rigidity in space", even the so-called minor axis theorem, aka tennis racket theorem.

2. When angular momentum is torqued it is immediately met by an opposing torque of exactly the same magnitude and in exactly the opposite direction.

3. In the event of #2 another, much smaller angular momentum instantly appears which is always perpendicular to the original angular momentum. This is commonly referred to as precession.

4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived from first principles of any physics, past or present.

PS--the Big Ben Paradox has again succeeded is raising a lot of hell on yet another moderated physics platform https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-about-the-big-ben-paradox.1057911/#post-6973546

Den 04.12.2023 06:08, skrev patdolan:
> 1. All angular momentum has a "rigidity in space", even the so-called minor axis theorem, aka tennis racket theorem.
>
> 2. When angular momentum is torqued it is immediately met by an opposing torque of exactly the same magnitude and in exactly the opposite direction.
>
> 3. In the event of #2 another, much smaller angular momentum instantly appears which is always perpendicular to the original angular momentum. This is commonly referred to as precession.
>
> 4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived from first principles of any physics, past or present.

Quite.
Physics can't be derived from 'first principles'.
Physics is derived from observations of HOW Nature behaves.

Nobody knows WHY Nature behaves in the enigmatic way she does.
You can't understand WHY Newton's laws of motion are as they are.

But we know that the mathematical model of an aspect of Nature:
Newtonian mechanics, correctly predicts HOW a gyroscope will behave.

Physics doesn't answer or explain WHY, it only predicts HOW.
(You may nit-pic about the definition of "WHY". Please don't.)

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 11:06:04 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 04.12.2023 06:08, skrev patdolan:
> > 1. All angular momentum has a "rigidity in space", even the so-called minor axis theorem, aka tennis racket theorem.
> >
> > 2. When angular momentum is torqued it is immediately met by an opposing torque of exactly the same magnitude and in exactly the opposite direction.
> >
> > 3. In the event of #2 another, much smaller angular momentum instantly appears which is always perpendicular to the original angular momentum. This is commonly referred to as precession.
> >
> > 4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived from first principles of any physics, past or present.
> Quite.
> Physics can't be derived from 'first principles'.
> Physics is derived from observations of HOW Nature behaves.

A lie, of course,as expected from a fanatic idiot
And The Shit of your idiot guru, for instance, is
derived from the postulates of your idiot guru.

On 12/3/23 11:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
> 1. All angular momentum has a "rigidity in space", even the
> so-called minor axis theorem, aka tennis racket theorem.

Hmmmm. This is poorly stated at best.

For an isolated system in which the Lagrangian is rotationally
invariant, angular momentum is conserved. Note this does not apply to a
gyroscope near the surface of the earth and supported against gravity.

> 2. When angular momentum is torqued it is immediately met by an
> opposing torque of exactly the same magnitude and in exactly the
> opposite direction.

This is just plain wrong. Invoking MAGIC is useless.

> 3. In the event of #2 another, much smaller angular momentum
> instantly appears which is always perpendicular to the original
> angular momentum. This is commonly referred to as precession.

This is also just plain wrong. Invoking MAGIC is useless.

> 4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in
> anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived
> from first principles of any physics, past or present.

This just happens to be right, BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG.

The precession of a gyroscope is easily derived using Newton's laws
applied to the gyroscope. It is probably easier to use Lagrangian mechanics.

> PS--the Big Ben Paradox has again succeeded is raising a lot of hell
> on yet another moderated physics platform
> https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-about-the-big-ben-paradox.1057911/#post-6973546

How silly, as "the big ben paradox" is merely patdolan's lack of
understanding of very basic physics.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 8:05:56 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/3/23 11:08 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > 1. All angular momentum has a "rigidity in space", even the
> > so-called minor axis theorem, aka tennis racket theorem.
> Hmmmm. This is poorly stated at best.
>
> For an isolated system in which the Lagrangian is rotationally
> invariant, angular momentum is conserved. Note this does not apply to a
> gyroscope near the surface of the earth and supported against gravity.
> > 2. When angular momentum is torqued it is immediately met by an
> > opposing torque of exactly the same magnitude and in exactly the
> > opposite direction.
> This is just plain wrong. Invoking MAGIC is useless.
> > 3. In the event of #2 another, much smaller angular momentum
> > instantly appears which is always perpendicular to the original
> > angular momentum. This is commonly referred to as precession.
> This is also just plain wrong. Invoking MAGIC is useless.
> > 4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in
> > anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived
> > from first principles of any physics, past or present.
> This just happens to be right, BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG.
>
> The precession of a gyroscope is easily derived using Newton's laws
> applied to the gyroscope. It is probably easier to use Lagrangian mechanics.
> > PS--the Big Ben Paradox has again succeeded is raising a lot of hell
> > on yet another moderated physics platform
> > https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-about-the-big-ben-paradox.1057911/#post-6973546
> How silly, as "the big ben paradox" is merely patdolan's lack of
> understanding of very basic physics.
>
> Tom Roberts

It seems he needs to explain "real centrifugal" and "Coriolis".

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:06:04 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 04.12.2023 06:08, skrev patdolan:
> > 1. All angular momentum has a "rigidity in space", even the so-called minor axis theorem, aka tennis racket theorem.
> >
> > 2. When angular momentum is torqued it is immediately met by an opposing torque of exactly the same magnitude and in exactly the opposite direction.
> >
> > 3. In the event of #2 another, much smaller angular momentum instantly appears which is always perpendicular to the original angular momentum. This is commonly referred to as precession.
> >
> > 4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived from first principles of any physics, past or present.
> Quite.
> Physics can't be derived from 'first principles'.
> Physics is derived from observations of HOW Nature behaves.
>
> Nobody knows WHY Nature behaves in the enigmatic way she does.
> You can't understand WHY Newton's laws of motion are as they are.
>
> But we know that the mathematical model of an aspect of Nature:
> Newtonian mechanics, correctly predicts HOW a gyroscope will behave.
>
> Physics doesn't answer or explain WHY, it only predicts HOW.
> (You may nit-pic about the definition of "WHY". Please don't.)
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

How about logic and mathematics (from first principles, or after final cause)?

"Physics, the natural science"?

If you read Einstein about his, "model physicist", and "model philosopher",
and why they're different and why they're the same, you'll notice he claims
himself both, while of course averring that physics must be all in the language
of the model physicist.

Channels Averroes, ..., who was also a sort of "strong mathematical platonist".

It's a gauge theory, time symmetry never falsified (or no closed time-like curves),
actually Einstein himself really felt that his goal was "why" Newton's laws,
or rather as for "Newton's zero-eth law(s)". (Or that's a reading of it.)

How about theory and metaphysics from first principles, even none?

Warm regards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BNDx-FUwKM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHVOLO1ryGQ&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:06:04 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 04.12.2023 06:08, skrev patdolan:
> > > 1. All angular momentum has a "rigidity in space", even the so-called minor axis theorem, aka tennis racket theorem.
> > >
> > > 2. When angular momentum is torqued it is immediately met by an opposing torque of exactly the same magnitude and in exactly the opposite direction.
> > >
> > > 3. In the event of #2 another, much smaller angular momentum instantly appears which is always perpendicular to the original angular momentum. This is commonly referred to as precession.
> > >
> > > 4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived from first principles of any physics, past or present.
> > Quite.
> > Physics can't be derived from 'first principles'.
> > Physics is derived from observations of HOW Nature behaves.
> >
> > Nobody knows WHY Nature behaves in the enigmatic way she does.
> > You can't understand WHY Newton's laws of motion are as they are.
> >
> > But we know that the mathematical model of an aspect of Nature:
> > Newtonian mechanics, correctly predicts HOW a gyroscope will behave.
> >
> > Physics doesn't answer or explain WHY, it only predicts HOW.
> > (You may nit-pic about the definition of "WHY". Please don't.)
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > https://paulba.no/
> How about logic and mathematics (from first principles, or after final cause)?
>
> "Physics, the natural science"?
>
> If you read Einstein about his, "model physicist", and "model philosopher",
> and why they're different and why they're the same, you'll notice he claims
> himself both, while of course averring that physics must be all in the language
> of the model physicist.
>
> Channels Averroes, ..., who was also a sort of "strong mathematical platonist".
>
> It's a gauge theory, time symmetry never falsified (or no closed time-like curves),
> actually Einstein himself really felt that his goal was "why" Newton's laws,
> or rather as for "Newton's zero-eth law(s)". (Or that's a reading of it.)
>
> How about theory and metaphysics from first principles, even none?
>
> Warm regards
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BNDx-FUwKM
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHVOLO1ryGQ&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5

Here's a pretty good summary bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4eTUKaFE7U&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3&index=10

On 12/4/2023 12:08 AM, patdolan wrote:

> 4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived from first principles of any physics, past or present.

No, showing the existence of the torque/precession is a second semester
freshman physics problem. Best way to treat it is to consider the
rotating mass as many smaller masses instantaneously moving in a
straight line but rigidly attached to the hub and showing how the system
reacts to an instantaneous force. Newton figured this out long ago.

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 12:21:12 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 12/4/2023 12:08 AM, patdolan wrote:
>
> > 4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived from first principles of any physics, past or present.
> No, showing the existence of the torque/precession is a second semester
> freshman physics problem. Best way to treat it is to consider the
> rotating mass as many smaller masses instantaneously moving in a
> straight line but rigidly attached to the hub and showing how the system
> reacts to an instantaneous force. Newton figured this out long ago.

The two most important, most ignored and most unexplained properties of the gyroscope are 1) rigidity, and 2) the instantaneous and perfectly opposing torque which magically appears and exactly balances the applied torque to prevent the g-scope from tipping over while it precesses.

On 05-Dec-23 12:54 pm, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 12:21:12 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/4/2023 12:08 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>> 4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived from first principles of any physics, past or present.
>> No, showing the existence of the torque/precession is a second semester
>> freshman physics problem. Best way to treat it is to consider the
>> rotating mass as many smaller masses instantaneously moving in a
>> straight line but rigidly attached to the hub and showing how the system
>> reacts to an instantaneous force. Newton figured this out long ago.
>
> The two most important, most ignored and most unexplained properties of the gyroscope are 1) rigidity, and 2) the instantaneous and perfectly opposing torque which magically appears and exactly balances the applied torque to prevent the g-scope from tipping over while it precesses.

You've just been told how to analyse a gyroscope, but you ignore that
and go back to magic.

Sylvia.

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 6:15:39 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 05-Dec-23 12:54 pm, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 12:21:12 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/4/2023 12:08 AM, patdolan wrote:
> >>
> >>> 4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived from first principles of any physics, past or present.
> >> No, showing the existence of the torque/precession is a second semester
> >> freshman physics problem. Best way to treat it is to consider the
> >> rotating mass as many smaller masses instantaneously moving in a
> >> straight line but rigidly attached to the hub and showing how the system
> >> reacts to an instantaneous force. Newton figured this out long ago.
> >
> > The two most important, most ignored and most unexplained properties of the gyroscope are 1) rigidity, and 2) the instantaneous and perfectly opposing torque which magically appears and exactly balances the applied torque to prevent the g-scope from tipping over while it precesses.
> You've just been told how to analyse a gyroscope, but you ignore that
> and go back to magic.
>
> Sylvia.
Then analyze it for us, Sylvia. Or give a link that will. And remember that we are going for an explanation of 1) bracing, and 2) the instantaneous counter torque that exactly counters the applied torque and keeps the g-scope from tipping over while it precesses. We don't give a damn about precession at this point. We will get to that AFTER we learn the basics of bracing and counter-torque. Capisci?

On 12/4/2023 8:54 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 12:21:12 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/4/2023 12:08 AM, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>> 4. None of the aforementioned enigmatic behaviors are understood in anyway by any physics, past or present. And they cannot be derived from first principles of any physics, past or present.

>> No, showing the existence of the torque/precession is a second semester
>> freshman physics problem. Best way to treat it is to consider the
>> rotating mass as many smaller masses instantaneously moving in a
>> straight line but rigidly attached to the hub and showing how the system
>> reacts to an instantaneous force. Newton figured this out long ago.
>
> The two most important, most ignored and most unexplained properties of the gyroscope are 1) rigidity, and 2) the instantaneous and perfectly opposing torque which magically appears and exactly balances the applied torque to prevent the g-scope from tipping over while it precesses.

You flunk freshman physics, Semester 2. The properties of gyroscopes is
not "unexplained properties" but are well understood physics as I
stated. Just because you aren't smart enough to understand it doesn't
mean it's wrong or nobody understands it, it just means you're just not
smart enough.

Nor is the gyroscope not tipping over any form of "magic", conservation
of angular momentum is enough to explain "why" a gyroscope doesn't fall
over.

(a common trait of cranks is that they seem to think that if they don't
understand something either it's wrong or they project their lack of
understanding onto /everyone/, implying /nobody/ understands it)

On 05-Dec-23 12:54 pm, patdolan wrote:

> The two most important, most ignored and most unexplained properties
> of the gyroscope are 1) rigidity,

The approximate rigidity is a consequence of the properties of the
material the gyroscope is made of.

> and 2) the instantaneous and perfectly opposing torque which magically
> appears and exactly balances the applied torque to prevent the g-scope
> from tipping over while it precesses.

When you look at the gyroscope you don't see torque, you just see motion.
For the explanation of the motion, see e.g. Goldstein: Classical Mchanics
sections 5-6 and 5-7.

Mikko

On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 8:24:47 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 6:15:39 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:

> > You've just been told how to analyse a gyroscope, but you ignore that
> > and go back to magic.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> Then analyze it for us, Sylvia. Or give a link that will. And remember that we are going for an explanation of 1) bracing, and 2) the instantaneous counter torque that exactly counters the applied torque and keeps the g-scope from tipping over while it precesses. We don't give a damn about precession at this point. We will get to that AFTER we learn the basics of bracing and counter-torque. Capisci?

Why should we waste time trying to educate the
ineducable? You have combine incredible ignorance
with incredible over-confidence in your knowledge
and capabilities.

On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 6:43:12 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 8:24:47 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
> > On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 6:15:39 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> > > You've just been told how to analyse a gyroscope, but you ignore that
> > > and go back to magic.
> > >
> > > Sylvia.
> > Then analyze it for us, Sylvia. Or give a link that will. And remember that we are going for an explanation of 1) bracing, and 2) the instantaneous counter torque that exactly counters the applied torque and keeps the g-scope from tipping over while it precesses. We don't give a damn about precession at this point. We will get to that AFTER we learn the basics of bracing and counter-torque. Capisci?
> Why should we waste time trying to educate the
> ineducable? You have combine incredible ignorance
> with incredible over-confidence in your knowledge
> and capabilities.

Well, when you wobble, don't forget topple.

Hey have you heard that physics has big problems
and the entire mechanism of gravity is missing?

Did you know that one of Einstein's greatest causes
was an attack on Newton's laws? (Pretty much to
add Zero-eth ones so that the classical still makes sense.)

Yeah, I know, kinetics and kinematics are usually
considered the same thing as about Einstein's bridges,
linear/rotational, but if you don't know that there's a
deconstructionist account of that that's better explained
by it being quite, "un-linear", sum of potentials and such,
then not only do you not get path integral nor Fritz London's,
but eitherwise that's a discrete little finite closed system.

"Torque is static": yeah I know it's usually fallen into the other way.

Or, as you're leaning out the Ivory Tower howling at rabble,
people above are dumping their waste.

On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 2:45:36 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
> On 05-Dec-23 12:54 pm, patdolan wrote:
>
> > The two most important, most ignored and most unexplained properties
> > of the gyroscope are 1) rigidity,
> The approximate rigidity is a consequence of the properties of the
> material the gyroscope is made of.
> > and 2) the instantaneous and perfectly opposing torque which magically
> > appears and exactly balances the applied torque to prevent the g-scope
> > from tipping over while it precesses.
> When you look at the gyroscope you don't see torque, you just see motion.
> For the explanation of the motion, see e.g. Goldstein: Classical Mchanics
> sections 5-6 and 5-7.
>
> Mikko
Look at me, Mikko, and listen very carefully. ALL treatments of gyroscopes, including the one you reference, start in the middle of the story by starting with precession. No one has yet written the start of the story. Long before precession we need to deal with the first two chapters on gyroscopes--chapters that have never been written. The first chapter will explain the a posteriori synthetic behavior of gyroscopic rigidity with respect to a gyroscope's direction in the universe. The second chapter will explain why, not describe how, a gyroscope strives to remain unchanged when torqued by an external force. Only then can we move on to chapter three, which examines why the response to such torquing results in precession, which is another piece of a posteriori synthetic behavior.

Don't be like Tom Roberts, Paul B. Anderson, Volroney, etc. Always apply critical theory to the texts you consume. Ask yourself "What is the text leaving out". This has served me well over my career in this forum, culminating in my discovery of the Big Ben Paradox which will one day be credited as the gedanken the ended special and general relativity. But don't take my world for it. Just google around the internet a bit.

On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 1:47:39 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 1:07:41 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 2:45:36 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
>
> > > When you look at the gyroscope you don't see torque, you just see motion.
> > > For the explanation of the motion, see e.g. Goldstein: Classical Mchanics
> > > sections 5-6 and 5-7.
> > >
> > > Mikko
> > Look at me, Mikko, and listen very carefully. ALL treatments of gyroscopes, including the one you reference, start in the middle of the story by starting with precession.
> Not true. I have seen an analysis that started with a gyroscope rotor
> considered as an assembly of infinitesimal mass elements subject
> to motion constraints, the analysis being performed strictly using
> the equations of Newtonian mechanics (i.e. considering only particle
> accelerations, etc.)
>
> Contrary to what you fantasize, you bring NOTHING to the table that
> is of any consequence.

Clearly the gyroscope's action is on its foot.

That, spun up, is its own inertial system and rotating frame, its own little teacup-stirring.

There are at least two systems of coordinates involved, in terms of the action
on its foot, how it leans, how it wobbles, and how it topples: and how it doesn't.

When you say infinitesimals, aren't they uncountable or something? You mean
like path and line elements of a line or path integral? I'm asking, is it so that you
sort of take an infinity of infinitesimals and it equals one? I guess I'm asking if
you made a development all the way down to the mathematical objects.

Then, are you kind of familiar Einstein's bridges as because it's his connected
infinitesimals that bridge linear and rotational about the singular?

On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 1:47:39 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 1:07:41 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 2:45:36 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
>
> > > When you look at the gyroscope you don't see torque, you just see motion.
> > > For the explanation of the motion, see e.g. Goldstein: Classical Mchanics
> > > sections 5-6 and 5-7.
> > >
> > > Mikko
> > Look at me, Mikko, and listen very carefully. ALL treatments of gyroscopes, including the one you reference, start in the middle of the story by starting with precession.
> Not true. I have seen an analysis that started with a gyroscope rotor
> considered as an assembly of infinitesimal mass elements subject
> to motion constraints, the analysis being performed strictly using
> the equations of Newtonian mechanics (i.e. considering only particle
> accelerations, etc.)
>
> Contrary to what you fantasize, you bring NOTHING to the table that
> is of any consequence.
Link us, you Lincoln-log-loser.

On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:15:15 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 1:47:39 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 1:07:41 PM UTC-6, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 2:45:36 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
> >
> > > > When you look at the gyroscope you don't see torque, you just see motion.
> > > > For the explanation of the motion, see e.g. Goldstein: Classical Mchanics
> > > > sections 5-6 and 5-7.
> > > >
> > > > Mikko
> > > Look at me, Mikko, and listen very carefully. ALL treatments of gyroscopes, including the one you reference, start in the middle of the story by starting with precession.
> > Not true. I have seen an analysis that started with a gyroscope rotor
> > considered as an assembly of infinitesimal mass elements subject
> > to motion constraints, the analysis being performed strictly using
> > the equations of Newtonian mechanics (i.e. considering only particle
> > accelerations, etc.)
> >
> > Contrary to what you fantasize, you bring NOTHING to the table that
> > is of any consequence.
> Clearly the gyroscope's action is on its foot.
>
> That, spun up, is its own inertial system and rotating frame, its own little teacup-stirring.
>
> There are at least two systems of coordinates involved, in terms of the action
> on its foot, how it leans, how it wobbles, and how it topples: and how it doesn't.
>
>
> When you say infinitesimals, aren't they uncountable or something? You mean
> like path and line elements of a line or path integral? I'm asking, is it so that you
> sort of take an infinity of infinitesimals and it equals one? I guess I'm asking if
> you made a development all the way down to the mathematical objects.
>
>
> Then, are you kind of familiar Einstein's bridges as because it's his connected
> infinitesimals that bridge linear and rotational about the singular?

Did you hear about the "radical new wobbly theory"? The idea was that QM was not really understood
so what they do is define it as fixed, then introduce a new "random" and say then that what the numbers
say, then it's good and predicted by the theory.

Which comes across as, ..., a little more "wobbly" indeed than superstring theory, which can be great.

Yeah, this, "look we made quantum amplitudes into quantum amplitudes and now they're quantum amplitudes",
"all quite normalised", "we assigned these quantum amplitudes to both have the statistical interpretation,
and without" leading to "a theory where if we stare long enough at the wall, getting paid, we shall reach
enlightenment".

The superstring theory is much better than that, it's like "quantum not enough for you? Here's
twice as much and that much closer to continuous".

Really though what they need are proper continuum mechanics after "Square Cantor Space".

The superstring theorists, not the "normalising normalising normalising, ....".

"In the section “Physical constraints on the classicality of gravity” we show that
several realisations of CQ-gravity are already ruled out,...".

"... it would effectively rule out any sensible theory that treats space–time classically.
While confirmation of gravitational diffusion would suggest that space-time is fundamentally classical."

Yeah, if you wait long enough for the cold death of the universe.

"Completely positive probabilities ...", just don't mind the bit of mess on the Planck floor.

It's foolish, and supersymmetry is not dead, again.

"We would like to apply this trade-off to the case of gravity in the non-relativistic, Newtonian limit.
In order to do so, we will need to generalise the trade-off to the case of quantum fields interacting
with classical ones, which we do in the subsection “Trade-off in the presence of fields”. The goal will
be to understand the implications of treating the metric (or Newtonian potential) as being classical
by using the trade-off when the quantum back-reaction induces a force on the gravitational field
which, on expectation, is the same as the weak field limit of General Relativity."

Yeah, that's exactly what science is looking for. Except the part that's "wishful thinking makes
dreams come true", that would really upend more than just that quantum mechanics and general
relativity have to get together.

"Here, we come from the other direction, by supposing that gravity is instead classical,
and then exploring the consequences. Theories in which gravity is fundamentally classical
were thought to have been ruled out by various no-go theorems and conceptual difficulties.
However, these no-go theorems are avoided if one allows for non-deterministic coupling ...."

Great, so you just keep adding adding random wobbles, ....

Sorry, this has kind of reached sarcasm, all the above should be read as direct rejection.

On 2023-12-05 19:07:38 +0000, patdolan said:

> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 2:45:36 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
>> On 05-Dec-23 12:54 pm, patdolan wrote:
>> > The two most important, most ignored and most unexplained properties
>> > of the gyroscope are 1) rigidity,
>> The approximate rigidity is a consequence of the properties of the
>> material the gyroscope is made of.
>>> and 2) the instantaneous and perfectly opposing torque which magically
>>> > appears and exactly balances the applied torque to prevent the g-scope
>>> > from tipping over while it precesses.
>> When you look at the gyroscope you don't see torque, you just see motion.
>> For the explanation of the motion, see e.g. Goldstein: Classical Mchanics
>> sections 5-6 and 5-7.

> Look at me, Mikko,

I don't see anything.

> and listen very carefully. ALL treatments of gyroscopes, including the
> one you reference, start in the middle of the story by starting with
> precession.

No, Goldstein starts the section 5-7 with equations of kinetic and
potential energy and infers from them that the motion involves
precession and nutation.

Mikko

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 1:47:39 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase
>> Contrary to what you fantasize, you bring NOTHING to the table that is
>> of any consequence.
>
> Clearly the gyroscope's action is on its foot.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗪𝗮𝗿_𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗽𝗲𝗱𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗙𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/26IhtRElToNQ

𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃_𝗕𝗼𝗯_𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗮𝗿𝗲_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴,
𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗶𝘀_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗼𝗿𝗰_𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝘀_-_𝗗𝗼_𝗡𝗼𝘁_𝗣𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/fOQ6YuafqczU

2023-12-04_𝗗𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘆_𝗧𝗡
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/hHEPGTPAwmH0

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:28:09 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-12-05 19:07:38 +0000, patdolan said:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 2:45:36 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
> >> On 05-Dec-23 12:54 pm, patdolan wrote:
> >> > The two most important, most ignored and most unexplained properties
> >> > of the gyroscope are 1) rigidity,
> >> The approximate rigidity is a consequence of the properties of the
> >> material the gyroscope is made of.
> >>> and 2) the instantaneous and perfectly opposing torque which magically
> >>> > appears and exactly balances the applied torque to prevent the g-scope
> >>> > from tipping over while it precesses.
> >> When you look at the gyroscope you don't see torque, you just see motion.
> >> For the explanation of the motion, see e.g. Goldstein: Classical Mchanics
> >> sections 5-6 and 5-7.
> > Look at me, Mikko,
>
> I don't see anything.
> > and listen very carefully. ALL treatments of gyroscopes, including the
> > one you reference, start in the middle of the story by starting with
> > precession.
> No, Goldstein starts the section 5-7 with equations of kinetic and
> potential energy and infers from them that the motion involves
> precession and nutation.
>
> Mikko
Mikko, I have carefully studied Goldstein 5-7

https://www.math.toronto.edu/khesin/biblio/GoldsteinPooleSafkoClassicalMechanics.pdf

and can identify neither an equation(s) or a sentence which "infers" precession and nutation from potential angular energy, kinetic & potential. Please direct me to the precise eqn(s) or the paragraph.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 4:59:29 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 4:55:22 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:28:09 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
> > > On 2023-12-05 19:07:38 +0000, patdolan said:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 2:45:36 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
> > > >> On 05-Dec-23 12:54 pm, patdolan wrote:
> > > >> > The two most important, most ignored and most unexplained properties
> > > >> > of the gyroscope are 1) rigidity,
> > > >> The approximate rigidity is a consequence of the properties of the
> > > >> material the gyroscope is made of.
> > > >>> and 2) the instantaneous and perfectly opposing torque which magically
> > > >>> > appears and exactly balances the applied torque to prevent the g-scope
> > > >>> > from tipping over while it precesses.
> > > >> When you look at the gyroscope you don't see torque, you just see motion.
> > > >> For the explanation of the motion, see e.g. Goldstein: Classical Mchanics
> > > >> sections 5-6 and 5-7.
> > > > Look at me, Mikko,
> > >
> > > I don't see anything.
> > > > and listen very carefully. ALL treatments of gyroscopes, including the
> > > > one you reference, start in the middle of the story by starting with
> > > > precession.
> > > No, Goldstein starts the section 5-7 with equations of kinetic and
> > > potential energy and infers from them that the motion involves
> > > precession and nutation.
> > >
> > > Mikko
> > Mikko, I have carefully studied Goldstein 5-7
> >
> > https://www.math.toronto.edu/khesin/biblio/GoldsteinPooleSafkoClassicalMechanics.pdf
> >
> > and can identify neither an equation(s) or a sentence which "infers" precession and nutation from potential angular energy, kinetic & potential. Please direct me to the precise eqn(s) or the paragraph.
> Pairs of motion seem to be the norm. Rotation and precession.
> rotating and wobbling. Swinging and swiveling. Even rolling is double motion.
> Both sides have kinetic energy.
Mitch, I am intrigued by your last example: rolling as "double motion"

The cycloid described by a point on the edge of a tire is an interesting example. According to the special theory of relativity, the moving car's frame of reference is just as legitimate an FoR as the observer's FoR standing by the side of the road as the car passes by. For the observer on the side of the road, the point momentarily in contact with the road is at rest while the diametrically opposed point on the same tire is moving forward at a radial velocity of 88 ft/sec for a car traveling at 60 mph. The unbalanced pair of radial acceleration (one is zero) results in a centripetal (or is it centrifugal? I can never keep those two straight) force which will lift the car straight up into the air. According to my calculations, formula one race cars should all take flight on the first straightaway.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 7:08:41 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 4:59:29 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 4:55:22 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:28:09 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
> > > > On 2023-12-05 19:07:38 +0000, patdolan said:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 2:45:36 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
> > > > >> On 05-Dec-23 12:54 pm, patdolan wrote:
> > > > >> > The two most important, most ignored and most unexplained properties
> > > > >> > of the gyroscope are 1) rigidity,
> > > > >> The approximate rigidity is a consequence of the properties of the
> > > > >> material the gyroscope is made of.
> > > > >>> and 2) the instantaneous and perfectly opposing torque which magically
> > > > >>> > appears and exactly balances the applied torque to prevent the g-scope
> > > > >>> > from tipping over while it precesses.
> > > > >> When you look at the gyroscope you don't see torque, you just see motion.
> > > > >> For the explanation of the motion, see e.g. Goldstein: Classical Mchanics
> > > > >> sections 5-6 and 5-7.
> > > > > Look at me, Mikko,
> > > >
> > > > I don't see anything.
> > > > > and listen very carefully. ALL treatments of gyroscopes, including the
> > > > > one you reference, start in the middle of the story by starting with
> > > > > precession.
> > > > No, Goldstein starts the section 5-7 with equations of kinetic and
> > > > potential energy and infers from them that the motion involves
> > > > precession and nutation.
> > > >
> > > > Mikko
> > > Mikko, I have carefully studied Goldstein 5-7
> > >
> > > https://www.math.toronto.edu/khesin/biblio/GoldsteinPooleSafkoClassicalMechanics.pdf
> > >
> > > and can identify neither an equation(s) or a sentence which "infers" precession and nutation from potential angular energy, kinetic & potential. Please direct me to the precise eqn(s) or the paragraph.
> > Pairs of motion seem to be the norm. Rotation and precession.
> > rotating and wobbling. Swinging and swiveling. Even rolling is double motion.
> > Both sides have kinetic energy.
> Mitch, I am intrigued by your last example: rolling as "double motion"
>
> The cycloid described by a point on the edge of a tire is an interesting example. According to the special theory of relativity, the moving car's frame of reference is just as legitimate an FoR as the observer's FoR standing by the side of the road as the car passes by. For the observer on the side of the road, the point momentarily in contact with the road is at rest while the diametrically opposed point on the same tire is moving forward at a radial velocity of 88 ft/sec for a car traveling at 60 mph. The unbalanced pair of radial acceleration (one is zero) results in a centripetal (or is it centrifugal? I can never keep those two straight) force which will lift the car straight up into the air. According to my calculations, formula one race cars should all take flight on the first straightaway.

Tribology, non-a-dia-batic.

Pseudomomentum, rest exchange momentum, real space contraction,
the motion of space.

There's an idea that a theory of sigma or omega potentials,
results the true centrifugal, which we're familiar with as
for example how centrifuges work, for example fractionating
samples of blood.

Similarly symmetries in rotational moments, help explain
why planes fly.

There's a Bridgman's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Modern_Physics ,
I'll be looking for a copy of it, he describes that prior to Relativity were
a wide variety of theories for rapidly moving classical objects,
which deserve revisiting after deconstructivist accounts in the
course of studying Einstein's final theory and reasonably suitable
paleo-classical and super-modern redevelopments thereof.

On 2023-12-07 00:55:20 +0000, patdolan said:

> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:28:09 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2023-12-05 19:07:38 +0000, patdolan said:
>> > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 2:45:36 AM UTC-8, Mikko wrote:
>> > > On 05-Dec-23 12:54 pm, patdolan wrote:
>> > > > The two most important, most ignored and most unexplained
>> > > > properties of the gyroscope are 1) rigidity,
>> > > The approximate rigidity is a consequence of the properties of the
>> > > material the gyroscope is made of.
>> > > > and 2) the instantaneous and perfectly opposing torque which
>> > > > magically appears and exactly balances the applied torque to
>> > > > prevent the g-scope from tipping over while it precesses.
>> > > When you look at the gyroscope you don't see torque, you just see
>> > > motion. For the explanation of the motion, see e.g. Goldstein:
>> > > Classical Mchanics sections 5-6 and 5-7.
>>> Look at me, Mikko,
>>> > I don't see anything.
>>> and listen very carefully. ALL treatments of gyroscopes, including the
>>> one you reference, start in the middle of the story by starting with
>>> precession.
>> No, Goldstein starts the section 5-7 with equations of kinetic and>
>> potential energy and infers from them that the motion involves>
>> precession and nutation.
> Mikko, I have carefully studied Goldstein 5-7
> https://www.math.toronto.edu/khesin/biblio/GoldsteinPooleSafkoClassicalMechanics.pdf
>
>
> and can identify neither an equation(s) or a sentence which "infers"
> precession and nutation from potential angular energy, kinetic &
> potential. Please direct me to the precise eqn(s) or the paragraph.

The equation for procession is (5-50). The equation for nutation is (5-53)
and in another way (5-55). Another equation for precession is (5-66).
The equation for average precession is (5-67).

When a spin axis is first held fixed and then released, keeping ony one
point fixed, the spin axis first starts to fall. This conclusion is
stated in the text before the paragraph that contains the equation (5-58).

The inferences to each of these equations is evertything from the third
paragraph to the equation. There is very little other comments in the
text.

Mikko