Even More Odious

Comparison with Shipov

January 9, 2017

I read through the paper again and recall reading it about fifteen years ago. Shipov’s theory is overcomplicated and I will extend the free precession methods of the last note to precession of a gyroscope in the presence of a force field and see if that can explain forced precession with the new terms introduced by using the convective derivative of angular momentum.

Shipov is a crackpot, and anybody who respects him is a crackpot. The effect of ‘forced precession’ (aka the Kelvin Effect) was one of the first to be noted when, after thousands of years of playing with spinning-tops, a rather stupid humanity finally decided to study what was really going on, and invented the gyroscope. The effect is not mysterious, follows immediately from Newton’s laws, and cannot lead to levitation or propulsion. Morons seem to be unable to absorb the fact that all of the forces involved are couples, duh!

“This is very simple, basically and so it is very powerful. Laithwaite gave a lecture to the Royal Society in which he challenged the standard model and was met with stony silencen then ostracized, which means that they could not explain the experimental data with their own mind set.”

Yes, it is very simple … so why can you and Shipov not understand it? Laithwaite did not ‘lecture the Royal Society’; he instead misinformed layman, and polluted the minds of children, by performing his tricks at the Christmas Lecture and at other meetings of the Royal INSTITUTION. There were no ‘experimental data’ to explain … unless one counts the sight of the needle of a cheap balance bouncing over half the scale. By the way, he was not the first to do that; an incompetent aeronautical engineer had done the same thing in the 1930s. Again, it is easy to get a changed reading (even a steady one) if one weighs a vibrating object on an ordinary balance. It is, in fact, an exact analogy of the false readings which Ideotic gets during his electrical demonstrations.

“This kind of conduct does not work any more because of the internet. I agree with the rest of your remarks, as usual we must use all the methods available concentrated on one problem, to try to completely define the problem and solution. There is a photograph of Laithwaite holding up a heavy, spinning, forty pound (20 kilogram) weight with one hand, meaning that there is certainly a real force that the standard model cannot begin to describe, ergo stony silence even though Laithwaite was a professor at Imperial for many years. Try holding up a forty pound weight over your head for five minutes if it is not spinning.”

Rubbish: because of the internet it is easier and easier for every little loony to post their faked (or merely misinterpreted) ‘evidence’ for antigravity on YouTube. A satisfying new trend in physics education is for lecturers to encourage students to watch videos of the Laithwaite nonsense-demonstrations and make fun of them. There is even a video of someone repeating Laithwaite’s gyroscope-lifting ‘experiment’ while standing on bathroom scales (why did Laithwaite not do that), revealing that spinning makes no difference. The only difference, Ron, is that – when the wheel is not spinning – one has to contend not only with the dead weight but also with the moment of the weight about the wrist. Few people indeed could manage that. When the wheel is spinning, the whole thing precesses and the moment about the wrist disappears and one merely has to rotate oneself to follow the precession. If one rotates faster than necessary, the wheel flies upwards (entirely in accord with Newton’s laws); an effect which generations of demonstrators had shown WITHOUT LYING. If the precession is blocked, the whole thing immediately hits the floor. Laithwaite claimed therefore that the spinning wheel possessed no linear momentum. Laithwaite was an IDIOT. Our author friend (who is delighted that you have started to prattle about gyroscopes, making you an even easier target) also points out that Laithwaite was a complete fraud: he was rapidly promoted due only to a shortage of post-war manpower, and he stole ‘his’ ideas (linear induction motor, Maglev) from others (as did Watson-Watt, Whittle and Clarke). In his hands, those innovations were lost to the UK. A recent PhD thesis on Maglev, written by someone at Sussex University (where Laithwaite went to perform ludicrous ‘antigravity’ experiments), fails to mention him at all!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: