>complains about being strawmanned in debates
>equates separating angular and lateral components of velocity to denying conservation of angular momentum
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
>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.
1000 mph is slow?
the angle would change 15 degrees every hour. but it doesn't.
the idea that because the angular motion is slow that it wouldn't be picked up is your theory. you have nothing to back it up, it is a supposition to account for what you can't explain.