there is no lack of understanding of gyroscopes. i made it thru college physics. i may not remember the formulas but i remember the concepts. and can easily look it up again.
there is no debate about how they work, only that @phyg tried to claim angular momentum is somehow negated.
In physics, angular momentum is the rotational analog of linear momentum. It is an important quantity in physics because it is a conserved quantity – the angular momentum of a system remains constant unless acted on by an external torque.
what this says is it will remain in position because of angular momentum. this does not explain why a gyroscope doesn't rotate in a 24 hour period given the 'rotation of the earth'
If you want to discuss ONE SINGLE TOPIC
right, because that is how you debate a very large topic, you get to narrow the field. you are choosing strawmen arguments that no flat earther holds. you are twisting the truth to make it seem ridiculous.
pretending that NASA isn't complicit in the helio centric model is also ridiculous.
on you last post i stayed directly on topic and rebuked your post, and yet i still got downvoted. so don't tell me you are now ready to debate.
go back, undownvote me, and discuss the post i made to your recent post.
>complains about being strawmanned in debates
>equates separating angular and lateral components of velocity to denying conservation of angular momentum
how am i denying anything?
you've just posted words, then refuse to go further. you don't explain how these things are somehow negated during the spinning of the earth.
so instead of being obtuse, clarify why you think what you think is correct. citing physical examples that prove it, not just theory conjectured.
I didn't say you were denying anything, but okay that means I should rephrase what I've said to be less obtuse, to wit: "Don't complain about being strawmanned in debates, while strawmanning me as denying conservation of momentum when I'm just separating angular and lateral components of velocity."
oh, look you've avoid my question, and still being obtuse.
there is no strawman here. i directly asked you about your statement, been doing it the whole time. you are avoiding it.
I responded to the one actual question you awsked which was the first thing you said. Not the same thing as avoiding a question. But okay, I'll summarize;
I think low-quality gyroscopes can't pick up rotations as slow as one rotation every 24 hours while high-quality ones can. Which is tautologically true considering that how small a rotation a gyroscope can pick up is the obvious metric for how good a gyroscope is, the stronger assertion is that any gyroscope that purports to "prove the Earth doesn't rotate" is actually just low-quality enough not to pick up said rotation. Which is kinda taken on faith, but not any more than a flat-Earther takes on faith that the experimenter actually did use a good enough gyroscope that they would have picked up the Earth's rotation if the Earth was actually rotating.
As for how it's possible for a low-quality gyroscope to not pick up a rotation, the answer is friction. No gyroscope in the real world is perfectly frictionless, but high-quality ones used in aerospace get closer than cheap ones sold as "educational toys".
so you answer is the one in the video is cheap. that is your opinion, you have no proof that this is so.
what happened to your lateral/angular motion argument?
That argument was just a tangent about whether the rotation of the Earth was fast or slow; it's fast in terms of lateral motion, slow in terms of angular motion, and angular is what the gyroscope picks up.
Great! I guess that is a no.
I'll consider this conversation finished then. I won't bother you any more on your posts since you just stated you have no willingness to discuss a single topic to it's completion.
Please respect my board and no not make any further comments on it.
Thank you for respecting my wishes.
you are on my board. you are following me. you refuse to debate on yours because you know i would win.
go back to your last post. scroll to the bottom. undownvote it. discuss.
if you do this, i would believe your intentions are pure, but your deception in trying to hold the debate away from the board in which the questions where called is... manipulative.
I explained EVERY SINGLE TIME before I downvoted you for the EXACT reasons why and that I had requested you argue honestly before each one. You were unable to comply with the dictates of rational argument.
And you refused to debate on a single topic honestly. So, I consider the case closed. Please do not come to my board. And I will not bother you on yours again.
i'll do what i do. you are trying to control me. get a life, stop doing what you are told.
LOL. Who's telling me to do anything? And who is trying to 'control' you? Wow, paranoia and unsupported accusations runs very deep in your mind ! EVERYONE who disagrees with you is now 'just taking orders' and are a shill? I wonder what it's like to be that paranoid and have a theory so terrible that you have to have something like a billion people in on the conspiracy, every one of them able to keep silent!
Good luck. I hope no one continues to 'control' you! LOL.
haha. you're so funny. you pretend you bring light, but you only bring the darkness.
pretending you just didn't give me orders. haha