Ron’s Profound Stupidity


347(5a): Force Analysis of the Gyroscope

January 11, 2017

It is clear from this force analysis that the classical dynamics of the gyroscope never gives a counter gravitational force because of the result (12), the invariant of the galilean transformation. This is everyday observation, because the point of a spinning top for example never lifts off the ground. However in fluid dynamics, there is such a force, given by Eq. (18). It is a vacuum force and is very small (by observation) in a spinning top, but in the Laithwaite or Shipov experiments it could be responsible for their observations. This can be looked in to using computer algebra by precisely defining the configurations using by Laithwaite and Shipov. The force field of Eq. (18) can be plotted with gnuplot. It is is positive valued in the k axis, giving counter gravitation. It is due to the fluid nature of spacetime, aether or vacuum. The video made by Laithwaite needs to be studied very carefully to find exactly what kind of motion he describes. It is clear that no one can hold a forty pound (20 kilo) weight at arms length for very long. Laithwaite do es so with ease.”

Yes, nobody can hold such a weight at arm’s length. Even Superman would be unable to do so if the rod were sufficiently long. That is, Superman might be able to handle the torque about the wrist (which is the real problem when the wheel is not spinning) but the centre-of-mass of the system would eventually act vertically outside of his ‘footprint’, and that is the definition of static instability. He would fall over. But dear Ron, Laithwaite does not hold the weight at arm’s length: the weight (when the wheel is spinning) acts though the support-point, his hand. Does he hold his hand far from his body in a radial direction? Any reasonably fit person can hoist 40lb above his head, and Laithwaite was decidedly robust in build. Why don’t you study the video very carefully? Point of interest: some balloonists used to subscribe to a related fallacy. They thought that, rather than dump ballast, they could eliminate its weight (and thus rise) by putting the ballast on the end of a rope and by spinning it in conical-pendulum style. Do you agree that they were very very very stupid, Ron, or are you already planning to apply your loony theory to that situation as well?


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: