OK. Let's consider it, but let's not use the phrase "angular momentum"
because Cater clearly has no conception - let alone understanding - of
it.
Rubbish. It has been perfectly understood for hundreds of years.
Nebulous to the ignorant and meaningless to the uneducated, perhaps. To
someone who bothers to learn enough to understand the explanations and
equations offered, there is no problem.
No it doesn't. It is perfectly described in the framework of classical
mechanics.
Nonsensical. A centre of mass is a point and doesn't extend anywhere. If
the author means that the centre of mass has mysteriously moved outside
the object, then he's simply wrong. If he doesn't mean that, does anyone
else here know what he's trying to say?
No it shouldn't.
I'll get back to you on that one if the list would like me to, but I'll
have to say "angular momentum" a few times. These things can be
explained but it's a bit much for my tea break!
No it doesn't.
No it doesn't. This is very easy to verify experimentally. Take a metal
gyroscope and a high-resistance voltmeter - a cheap one will suffice
admirably. Spin the gyro. Apply voltmeter with fine wires. Note lack of
negative charge.
This also demonstrates that the author knows nothing of the electronic
structure of metals. He is using a childish "bag of marbles" model. I
use quantum mechanics.
This reminds me of a snippet of "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy"
where Ford Prefect is trying to make the Vogon captain believe that he
liked his poetry: "Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying
metaphor...". It is nonsense.
To summarise, the explanation of the gyroscope offered here has nothing to commend it over the explanation that it is held up by
blasts from invisible farting pixies.
[...]
Wow!!!! If it's a Nice Day on Sunday I'll take myself and the missus to
see it! Thanks for that. Perhaps I'll bring us back some nice photos of
it - alas no aerial views! (Not yet anyway - have yet to learn
paragliding...)
Mr. Cater made the following remark about gyros and spinning tops:
To which you replied:
Well, Mr. Cater obviously doesn't agree with you. I guess we'll get to the
nuts and bolts in a minute.
Cater's abrasive comments on orthodox science have irked more than one
person. I don't think his style helps, but I can understand his frustration.
He has made good points concerning the nature of gravity in relation to
clouds, tides,someastronomical findings and the behavior of gyros, but few
go beyond the parameters of orthodox physics.
Physicists try to create the iilusion that they
understand it and camouflage their ignorance with nebulous descriptions
of
its action accompanied by meaningless equations.
Mr. Cater studied physics, so at least he is not some truck driver who
schooled himself in his spare time. He is conversant with science.
A precessing gyro actually
confutes the basic foundations of conventional physics.
For example, as it
precesses, its center of mass extends well beyond its point of contact
with
the surface.
Let me paraphrase this in my layman's terms ( I have to make it good because
I know that Frode is watching. Actually, he's a good boy! )
He is saying that the bulk of the weight of a spinning top becomes tipped
off center in relation to the point of contact.
It should tip over according to all the rules of academic
physics.
No it shouldn't.
Now we have arrived at the nuts and bolts. Why shouln't it tip over if the
bulk of the weight tips over to one side?
What force prevents it?
Oh, you're British. We call them tops or spinning tops. What do you call
them?
You can measure the angular momentum, and attribute the top's resistence to
falling to the momentum if you like, but this is a symptom more than a
cause. The description becomes the explanation.
Also the moment of inerta increases with
the RPM,
No it doesn't.
When the spin loses velocity, the top falls. Simple observation tells us
that RPM is definitely linked to the inertia.
AT A CRITICAL RPM, THE OUTER RIM BECOMES HEAVILY
CHARGED NEGATIVELY,
More nuts and bolts. You are recent on the list, so let me just say that Mr.
Cater is arguing from the platform of soft particle physics. Mr. Cater
stipulates that photons form aggragates, which are the soft particles.
Photons are visible, but particles formed of them are not. The electrostatic
charge, or magnetism, generated in relation to a soft particle is not
readily perceived by present instruments.
Mr. Cater wrote a whole book in justification of the existence of the soft
particle, and re-visited most aspects of science in the light of soft
particles. I personally came to the conclusion that it is difficult to
establish the hollow earth theory based on generally accepted physics,
especially Newtonian gravity. Mr. Cater's book has inspired me very much.
WHILE THE PORTION CLOSER TO THE CENTER OF MASS BEGINS TO
TAKE ON A POSITIVE CHARGE.
You don't understand the process which he outlines, by which the negative
charge becomes distributed to the outer rim. the process, of course,
involves soft particles.
It is not really my purpose to present and defend Mr. Cater's whole book.
You would have to read it and assimilate, for example, the way in which soft
particles capture hard ones, in order to understand how such a negative
charge is distributed to the outer rim.
All of this, of course, contradicts mainstremscience.
THE RIM TENDS TO BE REPELLED UPWARDS BY THE EARTH'
S GRAVITY. The total effect is a counterclockwise motion about the point
of
contact, which counterbalances the clockwise torque tending to tip it
over.
You say it's nonsense because you don't accept it. But if gravity were
occasioned by an electrostatic radiation, then it is not too hard to
understand that a spinning wheel, negatively charged along the outer rim,
would experience repulsion in relation to gravity to prevent it from tipping
over. In the same way, when a woman's hair becomes imbued with electrons and
electrostatic force from her hair dryer, her hair tends to levitate.
You might be difficult to deal with because you already have scientific
schooling. We would have to un-teach you what you think you know, and then
start all over again. It would be very difficult for you to lend yourself to
such a process because, what a person thinks they know is practically the
bedrock of his or her ego. If you read Mr. Cater's book, it might change
your way of thinking but, by the same token, if you just stopped what you
were doing and investigated everything that someone told you to, you
wouldn't even make it to the breakfast table.
As for me, I feel that the behavior of tops, as well as of clouds, is a
matter of electrostatic repulsion in relation to gravity, which is also
electrostatic in nature.
I just checked your subscription, you subscribed to the list a few days ago.
It's a shame in a way, we just went over a lot of material in relation to
the nature of gravity. Dr. Pari Spolter has a book out called The
Gravitational Force of the Sun, in which she disassociates the force of
gravity from mere mass. David Pratt outlined the whole business about
gravity beling an electrostatic radiation, in relation to the HE theory, on
his error of mass page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity.htm#g4
And I have a page up of Pari Spolter info, and a page called Clouds Don't
Fall, at: HugeDomains.com
But the first one by Pratt is good, he is very succinct and covers more
ground than my material.
What about the angular momentum? It would give a sufficient
description for the behavior of tops. The angular momentum will
also push the soft-electrons to the edge of the top, but I doubt
that it will be the main force keeping the top stable when rotating.
But then again we have the Tripps top, how can its behavior be
explained?
I would guess that he means that the center of mass is high
above the point of contact. I don't think he means off center.
To me, attributing the resistence of the top, its stability, to angular
momentum in and of itself is like making the description the explanation.
Well, as the top tips to the side, so does the weight, right? He means to
say that the weight is no longer equally distributed above the contact
point, I think.