i do not understand a single thing from all this. now there is electricity at play here? not just mechanics? as i said, if you have electricity you have electrical fields. if you have electrical fields that change (simplifying here) you have electromagnetic fields. if you have electromagnetic fields, you have to take their momentum and their angular momentum in consideration.
you knew that electromagnetic fields have those properties... right?
think of the electric motors that can split steel axles with their ridiculously powerful torque and you will understand why the last thing you said is silly.
you know very little about physics to understand where you are in error.
but you do not seem to want to learn anything new, you only try to prove that the knowledge the rest of us have is wrong.
Sometimes that is what it takes for a new discovery. Imagine society thinking the world is flat, and that everything revolves around us... Then there is significant proof that we in fact are not the center of the universe. Or many many other discoveries that have been made. Sometimes it takes "out of the box" thinking and the ability to question what we are taught, more than what teachers can teach. Lerts, you may have opinions/thoughts different than some, heck some of these topics you get into I can't understand how that type of thought can be originated. But you pull it off, and for that you get a massive ! Keep up the questioning/thoughts!
a short explanation: conservation of momentum is as important as conservation of energy (some say it's actually more important).
sooo ok, he is "thinking outside the box". problem is, to do that properly, you've got to have at least an idea of where the box is... not knowing that electromagnetic fields carry momentum and angular momentum shows a rather large gap in the understanding of how things work.
but none but me knows how an astronaut uses a screwdriver in space
they admited they knew astronauts use something to be able to use a screwdriver but dont know exactly what
i do know they dont
you may think as a phisicist that whatever you say has more value than what i say, well im almost an engineer and i spent probably far more time than you studing gyros, as you can see that post is from 2005
what i say is pretty obvious, but nobody will see the naked emperor
gyros offer resistance to be rotated, oposite sense gyros have no precesion, they cancel each other
do you think im the only one who says cons of momentum is wrong?im not
nor cons of energy nor momentum is an undiscusible truth, in fact most advanced physics as quantic says undiscusible that vacuum is a sea of energy
and i couldnt discuss it cause they locked it so nobody got to know how an astronaut uses a screwdriver
edit:
i find interesting the quantum physics concept that vacuum has energy, that makes energy of the universe infinite
if its infinite in energy it might be as well in time, then we dont need god to explain things
they use the electricity from batteries and a gearbox to overcome the problem. more detail is not necessary for this discussion
yeah so? how do you go from that, to "conservation of momentum is false" ?
i don't care what you have studied or how much you have studied, even those who believe the earth is flat can tell you that they have studied a lot, that doesn't mean that what they think is right.
what you say is wrong. the smart comments about what you say being correct are not arguments.
if you want to be taken seriously you have to describe in great detail the experiment because your claim that conservation of momentum is wrong is very very serious and we need to make absolutely sure that nothing is left to luck.
"conservation of momentum is wrong because see i have this thing rotating and an other thing rotating and i move them, oh there is also electricity involved" this is what i have understood so far with your comments both in this thread and the thread on advancedphysics.org
yeah, so? the system that contains both the gyros has 0 angular momentum. each gyro alone has a very non-zero momentum. if you connect something to one gyro, momentum will start being transfered to it and the gyro will lose momentum. if you start rotating the assembly of gyros you will start spinning yourself.
doesn't matter how many of you are out there. until you give a very good and clear example, you are just ignorant. sorry, that's how it works.
this has nothing to do with conservation of energy. vacuum has energy but that doesn't mean that you can go about extracting energy from it. to gain energy from something you have to make that drop in energy. since vacuum can NOT have zero energy, you can not take the energy.
completely utterly unrelated
it could mean that, but i do not know what does this have to do with the discussion.
what? who uses god to explain physical phenomena?! this is insane, the discussion is completely pointless and you have no basis on which to stand and call yourself a scientist or an engineer.
That just might be the stupidest thing I've heard in some time. Someone who spent serious amounts of time and effort into studying something may have learned things that you might not know. Whether its right or wrong you don't have the rights to tell someone they can't think that way. Of course you're not doing that, your simply implying it. I will say I don't think there is much proof going to the Flat Earth believers, or Lerts here who is question other 'known' facts but some of the things they come up with / think about can make you question other things. I don't believe lerts here has all the answers but as I said above, questioning 'known' facts is never a bad thing.
It is when you (he) don't understand a) what he's questioning in the first place b) how to question it or c) what the results of his attempts are.
Maybe you don't know enough about basic physics (and that's not a bad thing per se) to see that it's complete nonsense - his comprehension of gyros, rotational inertia and, well, most things isn't at the standard to even begin to question their behaviour, and he doesn't have a steady and analytical enough mind judging by ALL his posts on this forum to find an alternative.
By all means question stuff, but first find out what you're questioning, then work out a replacement, then prove it rationally and clearly. Otherwise you're no better than a 6 year old deciding that things fall because the ground is sticky.
I'm just supplying lerts the motivation to continue questioning things. I don't really know fully what he's talking about either, so maybe that is why I was interested in hearing his side before I did some simple wiki'ing. (Granted I should have paid more attention in physics back in high school, if they even mentioned it back then -> I don't think they did cause physics was one of the classes I did pay attention to oh well...) But yea I was simply interested in his side of things. Although generally you must know what your questioning before you question it - at least to some basic level...
Call me stupid all you want but I have never seen a wiki page more encoded in non-understandable garbage. I even tried skipping the unknowns and couldn't figure out your point. However I don't want to start any other things so I'm just plain not smart enough to continue it seems.
Eller så voldtar jeg mora di...
! Keep up the questioning/thoughts!