Gyroscopes make FE impossible

Quote from: momentia on September 27, 2011, 07:25:51 PM

As well, large ring laser gyroscopes are very sensitive to small rotations and are very accurate. In other words, you don't have to wait for a visible procession, you can just measure the beat frequency right away, and from there calculate the angle of up from the axis of earths rotation.

This is simply a result of Mach's principle. The whirling heavens above affect the light in the gyroscope.

I have read on Mach's principle, and it is very general in its terms. However, the basic concept is relativity of rotating frames.

This is basically saying that the earth is rotating around the north pole. This would not account for the angle's (the one between "up" and the axis of rotation) dependence on latitude. The beat frequency would be constant for the same setup at all latitudes since everywhere on the earth would have to have the same magnitude of angular velocity, and "up" would always be parallel to the axis of rotation.

The earth is not rotating. The heavens are rotating. (I suppose if you were in the heaven's you might see the earth rotate). Mach's conjecture is that the effect is the same no matter which is correct.

This still does not account for the fact that the angle between up and the north pole (arcsin[n⋅Ω/||Ω||]) is roughly equal to latitude.

The earth is not rotating. The heavens are rotating. (I suppose if you were in the heaven's you might see the earth rotate). Mach's conjecture is that the effect is the same no matter which is correct.

Can you account for a force that would cause the heavens to rotate but not the Earth? Because the scientific model of the universe can account for the earth's rotation and much of the movement of heavenly bodies.

This thread should be stickied.

This still does not account for the fact that the angle between up and the north pole (arcsin[n⋅Ω/||Ω||]) is roughly equal to latitude.

FE just failed big time.

RE corroborated, FE refuted.

Quote from: momentia on September 27, 2011, 11:52:33 PM

This still does not account for the fact that the angle between up and the north pole (arcsin[n⋅Ω/||Ω||]) is roughly equal to latitude.

FE just failed big time.

RE corroborated, FE refuted.

Momentia, please feel free to join in with the general kicking of Thork in the INS thread, your understanding of gyroscopes will add weight to the new disproof of curved east-west travel.

Quote from: momentia on October 06, 2011, 10:17:17 AM

Quote from: momentia on September 27, 2011, 11:52:33 PM

This still does not account for the fact that the angle between up and the north pole (arcsin[n⋅Ω/||Ω||]) is roughly equal to latitude.

FE just failed big time.

RE corroborated, FE refuted.

Momentia, please feel free to join in with the general kicking of Thork in the INS thread, your understanding of gyroscopes will add weight to the new disproof of curved east-west travel. help. My thread failed and I got made to look silly by an FEr.

Fix'd

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 06, 2011, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: momentia on October 06, 2011, 10:17:17 AM

Quote from: momentia on September 27, 2011, 11:52:33 PM

This still does not account for the fact that the angle between up and the north pole (arcsin[n⋅Ω/||Ω||]) is roughly equal to latitude.

FE just failed big time.

RE corroborated, FE refuted.

Momentia, please feel free to join in with the general kicking of Thork in the INS thread, your understanding of gyroscopes will add weight to the new disproof of curved east-west travel. help. My thread failed and I got made to look silly by an FEr.

Fix'd

Orly?
Explain how this:

I'd like to see you confirm or deny that INS is capable of distinguishing between a yaw-free trajectory and one which follows a curve to left or right. The ability to distinguish between these two types of travel is what enables us to confirm that when one travels in a yaw-free line to east or west, we are not travelling in a big circle on a flat disc.
If you confirm that INS is capable of distinguishing between yawed and yaw-free travel, you are admitting that it disproves the "travelling in a circle" east-west circumnavigation argument of FET.
If you deny that INS is capable of distinguishing between yawed and yaw-free travel, you are required to explain how INS is able to be used for navigation at all. Which it is, very successfully.

(which you have not responded to) is me being made to look silly by a FE'er?  How has my thread failed when (a)you don't address this, and (b)you describe a commonly used navigation system that is implemented in some of the most advanced vehicles on the planet as "a hideous piece of crap"? I'm sure submarine captains and many pilots would like you to say that to their faces. They trust their lives to INS equipment.
ITT: Thork is not only creamed, he's put in a blender with some chives and garlic and poured over a pork chop.
(oh and FYI, "fixed" is spelled "fixed", not "fix'd".)

Orly?
Explain how this:

Quote

I'd like to see you confirm or deny that INS is capable of distinguishing between a yaw-free trajectory and one which follows a curve to left or right. The ability to distinguish between these two types of travel is what enables us to confirm that when one travels in a yaw-free line to east or west, we are not travelling in a big circle on a flat disc.
If you confirm that INS is capable of distinguishing between yawed and yaw-free travel, you are admitting that it disproves the "travelling in a circle" east-west circumnavigation argument of FET.
If you deny that INS is capable of distinguishing between yawed and yaw-free travel, you are required to explain how INS is able to be used for navigation at all. Which it is, very successfully.

(which you have not responded to) is me being made to look silly by a FE'er?  How has my thread failed when (a)you don't address this, and (b)you describe a commonly used navigation system that is implemented in some of the most advanced vehicles on the planet as "a hideous piece of crap"? I'm sure submarine captains and many pilots would like you to say that to their faces. They trust their lives to INS equipment.
ITT: Thork is not only creamed, he's put in a blender with some chives and garlic and poured over a pork chop.
(oh and FYI, "fixed" is spelled "fixed", not "fix'd".)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fix'd

Read that. Its the least embarrassing of all the rubbish you just wrote.

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 06, 2011, 01:46:55 PM

Orly?
Explain how this:

Quote

I'd like to see you confirm or deny that INS is capable of distinguishing between a yaw-free trajectory and one which follows a curve to left or right. The ability to distinguish between these two types of travel is what enables us to confirm that when one travels in a yaw-free line to east or west, we are not travelling in a big circle on a flat disc.
If you confirm that INS is capable of distinguishing between yawed and yaw-free travel, you are admitting that it disproves the "travelling in a circle" east-west circumnavigation argument of FET.
If you deny that INS is capable of distinguishing between yawed and yaw-free travel, you are required to explain how INS is able to be used for navigation at all. Which it is, very successfully.

(which you have not responded to) is me being made to look silly by a FE'er?  How has my thread failed when (a)you don't address this, and (b)you describe a commonly used navigation system that is implemented in some of the most advanced vehicles on the planet as "a hideous piece of crap"? I'm sure submarine captains and many pilots would like you to say that to their faces. They trust their lives to INS equipment.
ITT: Thork is not only creamed, he's put in a blender with some chives and garlic and poured over a pork chop.
(oh and FYI, "fixed" is spelled "fixed", not "fix'd".)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fix'd

Read that. Its the least embarrassing of all the rubbish you just wrote.

It's the only thing I just wrote that you know how to make a response to.
(And "fixed" is still spelled "fixed", just so you know )

I really want a legitimate response to this thread. (Although that is probably hopeless.)
Why do optical gyroscopes appear to refute FE and corroborate RE?
Anyone?

I really want a legitimate response to this thread. (Although that is probably hopeless.)
Why do optical gyroscopes appear to refute FE and corroborate RE?
Anyone?

The usual response when the RE'ers totally crush the FE'ers - they ignore the things they can't answer. Eventually, if goaded enough, one might wander in and say you're wrong because you didn't make the optical gyroscope yourself and test it yourself blah blah blah, as if being "zetetic" is somehow better, rather than a completely useless philosophical attitude.

I really want a legitimate response to this thread. (Although that is probably hopeless.)
Why do optical gyroscopes appear to refute FE and corroborate RE?
Anyone?

I already explained to you that Mach's principle explains this, but you are unwilling or unable to comprehend that the dome of the heavens produces the effect, just as you were unwilling or unable to comprehend that the Allais effect proves that the heavens are affecting the pendulums, as opposed to a rotation of the earth.

Quote from: momentia on October 09, 2011, 01:29:29 PM

I really want a legitimate response to this thread. (Although that is probably hopeless.)
Why do optical gyroscopes appear to refute FE and corroborate RE?
Anyone?

I already explained to you that Mach's principle explains this, but you are unwilling or unable to comprehend that the dome of the heavens produces the effect, just as you were unwilling or unable to comprehend that the Allais effect proves that the heavens are affecting the pendulums, as opposed to a rotation of the earth.

Even with Mach's principle, the earth would appear to have a constant angular velocity at all latitudes. However this is not true. Remember that the angle between up and the axis of rotation (arcsin[n⋅Ω/||Ω||]) is roughly equal to latitude.
Also the workings of laser gyroscopes have nothing to do with the workings of pendulums.

Even with Mach's principle, the earth would appear to have a constant angular velocity at all latitudes.

No it wouldn't. The stars are traveling faster near the North Pole than they are over Mexico. It's not constant.

Quote from: momentia on October 09, 2011, 10:58:44 PM

Even with Mach's principle, the earth would appear to have a constant angular velocity at all latitudes.

No it wouldn't. The stars are traveling faster near the North Pole than they are over Mexico. It's not constant.

What map are you using Tom?
Do you finally want to put some math into the star's motions?

Even with Mach's principle, the earth would appear to have a constant angular velocity at all latitudes.

This is not true.

Also the workings of laser gyroscopes have nothing to do with the workings of pendulums.

Are you suggesting that photons and other quanta have no inertial mass? Or are you (again) not understanding Mach's principle?

Quote from: momentia on October 09, 2011, 10:58:44 PM

Even with Mach's principle, the earth would appear to have a constant angular velocity at all latitudes.

This is not true.

Quote

Also the workings of laser gyroscopes have nothing to do with the workings of pendulums.

Are you suggesting that photons and other quanta have no inertial mass? Or are you (again) not understanding Mach's principle?

Photons have momentum and angular momentum, but no rest mass.

If you are so confident that Mach's principle explains this phenomena, can you derive an expected apparent rotation of the ring laser gyroscope using FET physics. Does it match expected values?

This is trivial to do in RE. I would like to see the math behind why FET would predict the results observed. I have been waiting a long time to see some FET physics in action.

Quote from: Ski on October 09, 2011, 11:18:51 PM

Quote from: momentia on October 09, 2011, 10:58:44 PM

Even with Mach's principle, the earth would appear to have a constant angular velocity at all latitudes.

This is not true.

Quote

Also the workings of laser gyroscopes have nothing to do with the workings of pendulums.

Are you suggesting that photons and other quanta have no inertial mass? Or are you (again) not understanding Mach's principle?

Photons have momentum and angular momentum, but no rest mass.

Correct. Which is why they are acted upon.

If you are so confident that Mach's principle explains this phenomena, can you derive an expected apparent rotation of the ring laser gyroscope using FET physics. Does it match expected values?

I'm sure someone more talented than I could. I can see no reason why it is not possible.

Quote

If you are so confident that Mach's principle explains this phenomena, can you derive an expected apparent rotation of the ring laser gyroscope using FET physics. Does it match expected values?

I'm sure someone more talented than I could. I can see no reason why it is not possible.

I would like to meet that person, or read something they wrote. If you can find some one who could do this, I would be honestly impressed, and I would be much more interested in this debate. Until then, RE is still the best theory we have.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2011, 11:05:40 PM

Quote from: momentia on October 09, 2011, 10:58:44 PM

Even with Mach's principle, the earth would appear to have a constant angular velocity at all latitudes.

No it wouldn't. The stars are traveling faster near the North Pole than they are over Mexico. It's not constant.

What map are you using Tom?
Do you finally want to put some math into the star's motions?

Look at a record player. Points on record travel faster towards the interior of the record than points towards the edges, despite all points moving at one revolution every 4 seconds.

Look at a record player. Points on record travel faster towards the interior of the record than points towards the edges, despite all points moving at one revolution every 4 seconds.

Of course they don't. All points on the record have the same angular speed. But since the traveled distance for an inner point is smaller than for an outer point (smaller circles in equal time), the linear speed of an inner points is smaller.

Also, do you have a 15RPM record player? The ones I have heard of are 33RPM, 45RPM and 78RPM. (I'm too young for the latter, I have owned a record player that could handle the first two.)

I have a 33/45 turntable. Two, actually, though I'm not sure my oldest will still work. I do have a few 78's that I have acquired over the years, but not a table to play them on.

I simply gave an example. I don't know if they make record players with 4 seconds per revolution. A record player revolving at 4 seconds per revolution will move at varying speeds down the diameter of the record. Towards the center it will be moving faster and towards the edges it will be moving slower.

This simple thought experiment demonstrates that that "Even with Mach's principle, the earth would appear to have a constant angular velocity at all latitudes" is false. The stars are moving by overhead at different speeds depending on where you are, despite the whole system moving at 1 rotation per 24 hours.

I simply gave an example. I don't know if they make record players with 4 seconds per revolution. A record player revolving at 4 seconds per revolution will move at varying speeds down the diameter of the record. Towards the center it will be moving faster and towards the edges it will be moving slower.

Except that you have it back the front - the record moves fastest at the edge and slowest at the centre (It takes the same amount of time to do one revolution, but the outer edge has to move further, so it is faster) This is the linear velocity of the record - how fast it is moving in a straight line. Its angular veocity - how long it takes to complete a revolution - would not change with distance from the centre.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2011, 09:01:05 AM

I simply gave an example. I don't know if they make record players with 4 seconds per revolution. A record player revolving at 4 seconds per revolution will move at varying speeds down the diameter of the record. Towards the center it will be moving faster and towards the edges it will be moving slower.

Except that you have it back the front - the record moves fastest at the edge and slowest at the centre (It takes the same amount of time to do one revolution, but the outer edge has to move further, so it is faster) This is the linear velocity of the record - how fast it is moving in a straight line. Its angular veocity - how long it takes to complete a revolution - would not change with distance from the centre.

Incorrect. The outer edge has to move further, so it's slower. See this image:



Both cars have to travel the same path in the same amount of time. The yellow car has a shorter path, therefore it will travel faster than the green car.

Quote from: penguins_demise on October 10, 2011, 09:09:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2011, 09:01:05 AM

I simply gave an example. I don't know if they make record players with 4 seconds per revolution. A record player revolving at 4 seconds per revolution will move at varying speeds down the diameter of the record. Towards the center it will be moving faster and towards the edges it will be moving slower.

Except that you have it back the front - the record moves fastest at the edge and slowest at the centre (It takes the same amount of time to do one revolution, but the outer edge has to move further, so it is faster) This is the linear velocity of the record - how fast it is moving in a straight line. Its angular veocity - how long it takes to complete a revolution - would not change with distance from the centre.

Incorrect. The outer edge has to move further, so it's slower. See this image:



Both cars have to travel the same path in the same amount of time. The yellow car has a shorter path, therefore it will travel faster than the green car.

Speed equals distance over time - the time taken is the same, but the green car has to travel further - hence the distance is larger and so it has a larger speed.
Think of it this way - you walk ten metres in an hour, while I walk 1000 metres in that hour. Which of us has a greater speed?

You are correct. My mistake. I had it backwards.

You are correct. My mistake. I had it backwards.

you get mess up something as simple as that, yet hope to prove every scientist on this earth wrong?

you are no genius, nor a christopher columbus (except the other way round), do not expect to command the respect required to prove nearly 7 billion people wrong.