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.
You have nothing to back up the assertion that the gyroscope was sensitive enough to pick up the angular motion. And between "conspiracy theorist who believes the Earth is flat uses shoddy experimental technique" and "the Earth is flat", one is totally predictable and the other is totally ridiculous.
you having nothing but your assertions.
you prove nothing, and keep claiming victory...
while at the same time admitting to having no actual knowledge, but skimming boards to use to rebuke.
being hollow must be an interesting experience... to be a pawn, a puppet... to turn over your will to another. sounds horrible to me. but whatever works for you.
I mean, I could go into the Kolmogorov complexity of the two hypotheses for a more rigorous explanation of why the one is more likely than the other, but that's a lot more effort than the task of justifying an assertion like "a flat Earth is less likely than experimental error". Obvious things are obvious.
"Flat-Earther talking points" is a very niche subject, it's not weird to have to look that stuff up, it's more embarrassing for your side that the responses to the standard talking points are compiled that way.
You sound real proud of that diss considering it amounts to mocking me for having the scientific consensus on my side.
do you even have a high school education? because now you are just throwing words out there again. kolmogorov does not apply in anyway, shape or form.
and yet you continuously use words that don't apply. it is embarrassing.
i think you are acting from a script.
look at how you talk... bringing up shit that doesn't apply, then not being able to defend it. you are just hoping to befuddle me.
that is mainstream science... or a paid schill. same thing.