Home : Gallery : History : Uses : Behaviour : Maths : Forum : Propulsion : Links : Glossary
Main Forum Page

The Gyroscope Forum

20 June 2019 00:38

Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general, want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer. You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.

Search the forum:  


Asked by: Stan Smith
Subject: Laithwaite's Demonstration
Question: Why did Laithwaite not perform his gyroscope-lifting trick while on a weighing platform, or simply have a spring balance between his hand and the end of the gyroscope? Is it because he knew that either method would fail to show any weight loss? Question is, was he fooling himself or the audience?
Date: 23 May 2014
report abuse

Answers (Ordered by Date)

Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 23/05/2014 13:02:24
 Good question! He was fooling both himself and audience, but mostly the audance though I am sure he completely believed gyro I.P. was possible. He did it before with the Jones deal and with anchoring the sharp legs of a tower into soft dripping ice and falsly claiming it was free to move under the lowest coefeciency of ice. He did it with other showmanship things I believe. Watch out! We are stepping on toes here. Some believe his tactics because, like him, they wish to believe.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 25/05/2014 20:44:54
 Hello Stan,
Professor Eric Laithwaite claimed that the big flywheel lost weight.
He however did not claim that the weight left the system.
The system in this case is the flywheel and its shaft and the professor himself.
It is known to serious experimenters that during precession a gyroscope or in this case a flywheel has the unique ability to transfer some or all of its weight to act down through the axis of system rotation.
Eric Laithwaite rightly also claimed a loss of centrifugal force during his demonstration another action peculiar to gyroscopes and flywheels.
Nobody claimed that any weight was lost from the system.
The missing weight is simply transferred as I have been claiming for years now.
This probably helps not one iota but that’s life.
Like most other controversies it is the lack of understanding or ignorance of the facts which causes the problem
I have done it myself, I was a little bit apprehensive to start with but it is quite easily lifted. The faster the rotational acceleration the lighter it becomes and consequently easier to lift.
No magic just knowing the facts
Sandy Kidd

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 26/05/2014 19:02:08
 Dear Sandy,

You wrote, “Professor Eric Laithwaite claimed that the big flywheel lost weight.
He however did not claim that the weight left the system.”

Sandy, without the tag explaining what he did not say, think about what you wrote.
“Professor Eric Laithwaite claimed that the big flywheel lost weight.”

Pointedly, I myself have not seen where he ever said that the flywheel weigh remained in the system. Did he ever indicate that it did?

In truth I have yet to discover he ever admitted to an error at anything; that is, that he never made a mistake that he elaborated.

With that in mind; and to the best of my recollection I read that he spent a year at Essex College aided by an engineer furnished freely by the college, while attempting to measure for lost weight. Though he calmed at the end to have reached an understanding that Newton was right, though it still seemed to me mumbo jumbo he said Newton was wrong; I thought it all was more of the same muddle of confusion with added difficulty to understanding. After one year I think no weight was lost. He had been searching for lost weight, period. Again I repeat, I have yet to discover that he ever admitted to making a mistake in thinking and remember he was hunting for lost weight.

I am sure to be beaten down with intricate details and words taken from contexts, because I have learned how this works on here, nevertheless. . . . The totality of this entire endeavor shrinks to insignificance when one admits that while a helicopter hovers without argument, after forty years I.P. has not once proven to hover doodly squat over the surface of the earth and nobody can prove me wrong on this.


Report Abuse
Answer: stan smith - 27/05/2014 18:27:24
 Dear Sandy,
I hate to suggest that you do not know your physics, but I have been puzzling over your explanation that the 'weight moved but did not leave the system'. Could you perhaps be confusing weight and moment? Still photographs of Laithwaite holding a horizontal gyroscope in outstretched hand certainly look impressive because one knows that a dead weight like that would be unsupportable even by the strongest weightlifter. This is not because of the weight itself but because of the huge moment that it would exert on the wrist. If the dead weight were vertical, it could easily be supported by a strong man, because the moment about the wrist is then zero. This is also true if the gyroscope is horizontal ... but precessing. It would be awful if the entire gyroscopic weight-loss research effort was based upon an elementary physics misunderstanding.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 27/05/2014 22:57:30
 Dear Stan and Glenn
There is nothing wrong with my physics I assure you, it is maybe just a shade different from your specious appreciation of the thing.
Old and confused I may be but I have repeatedly stated what the outcome is when a spinning object is subjected to mechanical or forced rotation.
Did he really have to claim that the weight is transferred as most of us were aware of what he meant.
I will give you this that he was a born showman and prone to the dramatic and this is what caused a lot of his problems.
Laithwaite unfortunately judged his audience badly as they were ignorant of many facts relating to gyroscopes and it would not be easy to alter the mind-set or spatial ability of that lot.
Unfortunately he paid the ultimate price for his betrayal of Newton and many times after the event and several times in the “Heretic” program he was heard to recant but this was far too late to save his position, the damage done was irretrievable.
He was a beaten man certainly only half the man I had known.

Incidentally and totally unknown to Eric Laithwaite, I sent to a Gunnar Sandberg of Sussex University at his request in 1984 or thereabouts a test that they could easily perform to prove that a gyroscope lost all weight and centrifugal force during precession.
I am still waiting an acknowledgment or a reply 30 years on.
At that stage I was less interested in convincing them of the rest of the story, which they themselves would have discovered when carrying out the test.
This was prior to any association I had with Eric Laithwaite and I am just informing you that the so called lost weight thing was not unknown to more than one or two.
However I knew that it was transferred as my experiments had shown that fact..
This does not end here by any means and becomes quite involved.

The 35 minute Grampian TV documentary “The Man Who Wants to Change the World” was related to the arrival of my gyroscopic device on the scene 30 years ago this November.
Incidentally I have recently had the VHS tape converted to DVD and while scanning for pieces which might be dodgy, due to the age of the tape, I watched the part where it became my turn to wind up Eric Laithwaite’s large flywheel prior to a repeat of his famous demonstration.
Really he did not have to say anything as he was demonstrating what was believed to be impossible.
He seems to be more interested in claiming that there was no centrifugal force if my memory serves me correctly.
I will check this later.
However check the “Heretic” video from the 11th minute onwards and you may see what this is all about.
The man was just too far ahead of the audience for his own good.
PS Incidentally Glenn the guy who did the conversion was a nice American fellow living in Perth, who was keen to know what happened to the device, as he watched the program while doing the conversion
I replied once more that it was ignored to death.

Report Abuse
Answer: Stan Smith - 28/05/2014 12:17:18
 Dear Sandy,
I think that my explanation better fits the facts: in the 19th and 20th centuries, certain individuals became wealthy by fooling the general public by exploiting the latter's ignorance of simple physics to make them think that a weight had changed. Derren Brown still uses those tricks. Your explanation invokes phenomena which have no independent support, and therefore fails the Occam's razor test.
As for Gunnar, he was just a lab technician who was easily fooled; just look at how that conman Searl got him to misuse materials and equipment at Sussex University. I think that somebody made an FOI request to find out who paid for that, but the university found some excuse not to answer properly.

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 28/05/2014 17:26:55

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 28/05/2014 17:36:46
 Dear Sandy,

My friend you have been struggling with having your explanations understood, for what, thirty years? I believe that every learned man who ever read your words no doubt just shuck his head and discounted you. I believe you never knew. How could any of us know what we do not see and hear in a shrug.

The very strange thing, Sandy, is that I know you understand gyroscopes. That is not the problem. The problem is the home-made explanations and phrases you adhere to the bitter end. If you decide to use accepted languish and explanations, never again will a learned and thoughtful man discount you so nonchalantly and just shrug you off unbeknown to you. You can change to scientific speech and the accepted knowledge of the ages; yet you will virtually be saying the same things you are saying now.

The gravitation attraction to mass does not end because the mass is in motion. Old man gravity, does not scratch his ageless head and decide to attract a light weight pivot with the same force as a heavy wheel because the wheel is in motion. The universe would fall apart.

I have been explaining this for more years than I wish to remember.

Dear friend, Sandy, it is the torque of the wheel, not the gravitational confusion that presses down on the pedestal/hub. The last time I explained what how this happens was this below:

26/05/2014 14:04:27
If one griped the front of a none spinning wheel with his right hand and griped the rear of the wheel with his left hand and twisted the wheel; right hand pushing forward and
left hand pulling backwards, the wheel would twist. If a shaft were running through the wheel toward a distant post, the wheel would attempt to twist around in a precession-like movement.

If one now changes his grip; right hand on top of the wheel, left on the bottom and pushes with his right hand while pulling with his left; the distant tip of the shaft resting on a pedestal will register torque down upon the pedestal. This would tend to cause the gyro to rise. When the wheel rises in response, we all know it must also move inward. Mass is displaced inward. The wheel is pulling against week centrifuge and overpowering it, not eliminating it, but essentially eliminating the acting effect of it. Sandy has explained this for centuries, but in a languish of thought patterns foreign to the workings of my mind.

Kind regards,

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 28/05/2014 17:40:15
 Beautiful work, Stan.

Harry, whatever do you mean, 'IGNORED'?
I always counted on you to hold us in the middle of the road.

Good regards,

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 28/05/2014 18:09:44

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 28/05/2014 19:18:26
 I think some of you know that I don't really "believe" in any one theory on what gyroscopic propulsion might be, on the physical level. That's simply because we're literally laymen in the eyes of theoretical physicists, and whatever guesses we might have would be just that, guesses by laymen.

With that said, I never really understood why some believe it has to do with gravity modification, or "making something light"/affecting it's weight. The gravity we feel is the result of a, to us, impossibly large ball of mass that bends the fabric of space-time. A small device any human creates won't be able to nullify that.

So if I had to guess, gyroscopic propulsion has to do with how gyroscopes interact with the fabric of space-time, using space-time as a sort of "river" in which specially configured gyroscopes could "row" in. They can essentially "grab onto nothing and pull themselves forward". But *how* that happens.......... no idea. And even if my invention works I won't even try to explain this. It'll be a question for physicists to find out.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 28/05/2014 19:40:18
 Good MD, but actually there are some of the most knowledgeable people on earth in this field on this site. To this end they are not layman, but experts. No one knows more.
You are right about gravity and about, fabric of space-time, space time as a river, dark matter and so on, as it seem you understand it is ridicules to apply these to gyroscopes precessing. And it is ridicules.
There are two or more here who could explain your machine better than a physicist could.
You kind of masked over some very good post with thoughts that do not follow. " Always been a problem for me.

Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 28/05/2014 20:12:36
 Dear Stan Smith

You asked, before you started slating Sandy:- “Why did Laithwaite not perform his gyroscope-lifting trick while on a weighing platform, or simply have a spring balance between his hand and the end of the gyroscope? Is it because he knew that either method would fail to show any weight loss? Question is, was he fooling himself or the audience?”

I think you know the answer but you seem to be, like so many, trying to build up your opinions by putting down others’.

The answer is, of course, that he was not trying to fool either himself or his audience but simply trying to entertain and inform on a difficult subject that many are still unable to follow. Laithwaite had found, like others, that there were processes of gyrodynamics that did not conform to the then current version of the religion of physics and he tried to put up many examples in possible demonstration of this. That he and others, like me, have pushed their boundaries beyond what many could accept and that these may sometimes stray beyond acceptable description of what is happening is not some kind of heinous religious sin but merely a result of treading an unmapped path and pushing the boundaries of understanding. The odd mapping error tends to go with the description of a new territory. It may be reasonably said that if you haven't made an error you have wasted your life walking down other people’s paths instead of creating your own. Errors should be looked for in ones work but they should not stifle your search.

There have been many eminent scientists who despite being wrong on the odd point were also fundamentally on the button. Most novel teaching nowadays consists of little steps on existing understanding, easily described by their originators and thus are easy to understand. The larger steps taken by some, like Laithwaite and Copernicus, are so far away from what was established before that disbelief is the first reaction of the high priests of the old religion. Because of this the wildly original draw down opprobrium from those unable to comprehend and determined to preserve the religious teaching of the past.

Even as recently as my education (somewhere south of the Jurassic period) we were taught that the reason that an aeroplane (sorry, airplane, US) got lift was from its curved wing section, as there was a greater surface area on the top of the wing than on the bottom and that, therefore, the unit pressure being spread over the larger surface area on the top of the wing (compared to the bottom surface area) caused it to rise. Sounds wonderfully true, doesn’t it? Even as a child I knew that this was cobblers (Cockney slang:- cobblers awls = balls. See how educational my input on this site is!) as, if it were so, a plane would rise into the air without the need for forward motion or air flow and mean that no plane could fly upside down.

Many people (and, sadly teachers) still subscribe to this belief, propounded by Bernoulli, despite the fact that this is one of the (almost universal) areas where Newton actually is right – the downward deflection of tons of air causes an equal and opposite upward deflection of tons of aircraft.


Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 28/05/2014 20:25:04
 Glenn, a break dancer might be an expert on what moves he/she needs to do to keep momentum going and even increase it, even more so than any physics expert. But ask that same person to describe what's happening on a physical level and you'll get a nonsensical, unscientific response.

I'm too new to know how educated everyone on this forum is, but I'd say most of us has hands-on experience with gyroscopes and understand *gyroscopes* better than most, even physicists (as is my own experience). But that doesn't mean I'm an expert on physics and I'll be able to, somehow, magically know what's actually happening with the machine on, say, the quantum level. I mean, if we're to believe science, machines such as these would necessarily have to work in ways previously unknown to science.

I'm just saying it's pointless to try and explain what's happening even if we know how to cause reactionless propulsion.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 28/05/2014 20:54:36
 Hello MD,
Just these last commits. Quoting you,". . . it's pointless to try and explain what's happening even if we know how to cause reaction-less propulsion."

Trying to explain? Its been explained, explained and explained on here. Pointless is to blunder ahead not knowing what your are doing; why, what and how. "You'd like to fly in a plane designed that way???

Sorry, but neither you, or anyone else in the world knows how to create reaction-less propulsion. Little wigglets and smiggets of this and that, crawls and jerks I have found in my youth, and later explained in my adulthood as having hidden reasons consistent with physics. But I don't want to discourage you. Have at it. Have fun. But if you were older you would not place deity like devotion to the abilities of experts. Some aren't. I would be dead ten years ago if I had listen to not one, but six separate doctors. Today I am abundantly healthy and fit. I know everybody on here is glad about that the last couple of days. Uhuh!. Oh sure! In a way I am sorry you all.



Report Abuse
Answer: Stan Smith - 28/05/2014 21:10:32
When I was at school, we were taught that a plane flew simply by diverting air downwards. The fatuous Bernoulli explanation was a non-starter at every level; for a start, Bernoulli's equation does not apply to an open system. And if it is applied to aerofoils, why not to hydroplanes or helicopters? I used to ridicule it, to believers, by drawing a closed-circuit wind-tunnel around the diagram and asking why, in principle, it could not fly to the Moon. Of course, I later found out that such an idea had been the subject of several patent applications.
That is why one should be cautious about 'gyroscopic propulsion': not only can 'stick-slip' effects produce artefacts in horizontal motion, they can also operate vertically in crude weighing machines. Look at the Hayasaka-Takeuchi experiment; only an idiot expects to get valid results by weighing a vibrating object using a device that was designed to handle static objects. It is known that a working electric bell produces anomalous readings when weighed on a balance.
The waffle and hand-waving have to stop: set up a ballistic pendulum, or buy a trip on a vomit -comet; just to make sure that all alternative explanations have been eliminated.

Report Abuse
Answer: Stan Smith - 28/05/2014 21:26:36
Oops, forgot the main point that I wanted to make:
It is that you rightly castigate teachers for foisting an incorrect explanation for flight on innocent minds. How is that any different to Laithwaite foisting ideas, again contrary to the opinion of experts, on children (and laymen) at the RI?
Nobody is saying that imagination should be stifled, but let learners do their own groundwork.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 28/05/2014 22:17:01
 Dear Stan,
I am old yes, but not old enough to be conned by boxes that lose weight and used in the horse racing game to fool the stewards.
Please inform me as to how Eric Laithwaite achieved this Herculean feat.
A serious answer would be nice, from you or Glenn or even a combined answer.
I await your response with interest.
Sandy Kidd

Report Abuse
Answer: Stan Smith - 28/05/2014 22:45:49
I am certainly intrigued by the boxes that lose weight. Can you offer any documented examples? I have heard of boxers using a physics-based trick in order to lose a few critical ounces, and I know of one report (albeit in a newspaper) of its being used.
Professor Harrison, who featured in the Heretics programme, claims that he can make bathroom scales read light just by waving his arms about.
There is also a piece of standard early 19th-century laboratory equipment which loses weight while it is operated. Indeed, measuring the weight-loss is an integral part of the experiment.
As for gyroscopes, everything known about them is laid out collectively in the monumental treatises by Gray, Greenhill and Sommerfeld. You should read them. There is just one odd gyroscopic phenomenon which is not mentioned by them. It was first reported by Aristotle, but a professor at Bristol university now gets the credit for it.

Report Abuse
Answer: Stan Smith - 28/05/2014 22:52:20
And before anybody rushes to point out that gyroscopes did not exist in ancient Greece ...
No, they didn't, but tops did - and Aristotle asked what happens if the disc of a top is not fixed to the axle.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 28/05/2014 23:23:06
You complained that I stuck to my description of what is going on in gyroscopes especially in ones subjected to mechanical acceleration.
You and Blaze repeatedly claim that it is the overpowering force of gyroscopic torque which causes the elimination of centrifugal force, and pat each other on the back for saying it.
I could say that this is not correct, but I will say that this is a load of junk, but in the past I have been too polite to put it that way.
If you continue with this kind of thinking you will never get anywhere, you are in a rut, a logical rut but nevertheless a rut.

Physics as taught does not contain words to describe the technology I am trying to explain.
Who rapidly accelerated twin opposed gyroscopes before I did?
As a result things were seen from my very first experiment that were at odds with the books,
There is no terminology in place to describe “saturation point” or “saturation zone”.
If you do not like the words, we can change them to something else, like “precession- precession”, because, a lot of you do not know the frigging difference.
However a ”rose by any other name” and all that.

“You cannot accelerate no mass” another strange statement but true.
Momentus can take the blame for “Dark motion” although he is one person who is in agreement with me I think.
All it needs is a bit of thought, but I’m maybe taking you a bit too far.
These statements were all coined after months and months of experiments.
Please think what you are saying when you make these statements about a Fiat 500 trying to push against a truck which is pushing against it.(or something like that)
That is the effect you and Blaze claim is happening to the centrifugal force.
It is being swamped.
This is as Nitro so eloquently puts it is a load of cobblers.
I released anything I thought would be useful to you enthusiasts in 2004, and from what I can see now that was a total waste of time.
However if I am causing confusion, I shall confuse you no more.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 28/05/2014 23:30:11
 Hello Stan
I am waiting an an answer to my question, but it seems that you are another of the variety like a Dr Fisher who used to plague us.
He could quote titles of technical publications by the dozen but knew very little about the operation of gyroscopes.
Are you just another one?
Sandy Kidd

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 29/05/2014 00:00:49
 Dear Sandy,
I am about your age and yes you are getting ganged up on, but not by design and I feel bad about it. My only conscious intention was to give you a reasoned opinion that all your correct reasoning is lost to following the professor’s misstatements. (yours are not all correct) If you added the simplest words like; torque in place of weight loss, overpowered centrifuge instead of no centrifuge, momentum is so minute it hardly registers, because of the slowness of precession, then the conditions you have studied are not lost to general understanding. Really, noting would change but the tongue and you would likely never be challenged as you have been constantly in the last thirty years. It is only verbalization that has haunted you, not everything that you saw and reported.

As for explaining how the big wheel is lifted, I can’t explain any more. I have explained so many times on here, perhaps twenty with no response, that when I start to explain that again my head starts ringing just as the characters in, ‘A Brave New World’ Sandy, Stan called it moment.

But then really I don’t know what you are going to do about,” you cannot accelerate no mass.” The mass leaves the wheel? Gezz, I . . . .?? Then his dark motion?? I think . . . . Well. Good luck men.

Your machines still amaze me,

Report Abuse
Answer: Stan Smith - 29/05/2014 01:39:38
well, you did not answer my question about the boxes.
I was a little confused about which 'Herculean task' of Laithwaite's you were referring to. If you mean swinging the big wheel about, I think that it is now pretty clear that it is an illusion: the layman cannot avoid imagining the huge moment that would act around his wrist if it were a non-precessing lump of metal. It is probable that a 'superman' who could handle the moment could still not avoid falling over (because his centre of gravity would probably be outside of his 'footprint').
I do not understand the aversion to the scientific literature. The conclusions therein are the fruits of careful research. Scientists cannot get away with simply writing down what they imagine; other scientists won't let them get away with that.
By the way, is it true that the Carroll brothers are raving scientologists?

Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 30/05/2014 09:20:09
Dear Stan Smith and Dr Fisher – What the hell! lets have everyone in on this- Dear all,

You all, I think, are aware that the much revered Einstein in the absence of means of carrying out practical experiments (apparently in his day it was bloody hard poking individual bits of atoms about at near light speed) to provide empirical proof of some of his ideas he relied, instead,on mind experiments (typical bloody lazy mathematician! I think he’s largely responsible for the spread of people doodling equations on blackboards instead of getting a proper job, like making paper planes and suchlike). I suggest a simple mind experiment for you to try. You are most fortunate compared to Einstein in that I have previously put up a video that makes the mind experiment so much easier for those that have not previously carried out practical experiments to justify their own beliefs in the immutability of the earlier well trod path of Newton. Er! That would seem to be you then “Stan and David”.

Now sit up straight and pay attention all those who would improve their understanding of how it is possible to sod up lots of Newton (but admittedly also confirm much of Newton) and firmly place your plates (cockney again – look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls you lazy yanks!) on the first step on the road to IP.

Before you look at the video link below, if you have not looked before, you should understand that the motions shown on the end of a string can be duplicated using a ridged pendulum arm instead. It should also be understood that I do not particularly wish to have the scruffy, greying beard shown in the video but my wife wants me to keep it. My wife also likes to travel the world (this I hate – the traveling, not the being somewhere different – so will those amongst us working on a “ beam me up, Scottie machine”, please get a move on!) which is largely why I have had to concentrate my inventive genius, not as I would wish, on stretching the boundaries of your understanding but towards inventions and projects that enable funding for my wife to fly of hither and yon dragging me, protesting all the while, with her. I hate to be locked into an impossibly thin, stressed, aluminium (sorry US and Canadiaium:- aloominm!) tube or, as in the last case, a carbon fibre tube (that is cunningly fitted with auto-exploding, ferociously inflammable, batteries) that is the Dreamliner which recently hurtled us, on wings that bent like a banana, to the Maldives. The locals forbid the import of alcoholic beverages but are happy to sell them to you at vast prices at your resort. So nice to find religious integrity these days! It was a lovely place with lovely people though.

I digress and why not? You are not bored yet are you? Good, then get comfortable and I shall begin. Now would be a good time to look – or relook – at the video here:-


As can be seen in the video a pendulum weight formed by a gyro in a ball (I put it in a ball valve float to stop doubters saying its deflection was caused by Magnus effect. Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls!) is released and describes a curve when viewed from above. Clockwise in the first section and anticlockwise in the second, to avoid accusations of handism (a far worse offence than racism, in these days of politically correctism, I am told! – no, just to show it works both ways).

Now get the image of the pendulum swing (when viewed from above) locked into your brain and remember the curve. Got that? Great! Now this is where you need to use your brain and a little bit of imagination to be like Einstein - you do want to be like Einstein, with pretty girls adoring him and exploded mattress hair, don’t you? Great! Then let us put our size ten plates (I told you to look it up!) on that first step!

Woops! My breakfast is ready and you are going to have to wait a while before I continue to improve your learning of how (bits of) Newton can be circumvented....................................... Later

Oh! While you wait for my return – your homework is to give a short description of where the opposite displacement (equalling that of the clockwise displacement to one side of what should be a linear swing path), as required under Newtonian law, is.


Report Abuse
Answer: Stan Smith - 30/05/2014 11:48:04
 Answered elsewhere. No need for part 2.
Incidentally, I do correspond with Dr Fisher but we differ on fundamentals: I have a go at everybody, while he says that only ostensibly qualified engineers (who should know better) are to be criticized. He has a horrible example where somebody recently earned an MSc for developing a 'centrifugal space-drive'. He is too busy arguing with Boeing and NASA these days and says that he will 'out' them as incompetent physicists.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 30/05/2014 21:55:40
 Hello Stan,
I did make it clear that I have had a go at rotating that very same device, as did a member of the Royal family, but you did not know that did you?
Are you calling him a liar
You said:
“I do not understand the aversion to the scientific literature. The conclusions therein are the fruits of careful research. Scientists cannot get away with simply writing down what they imagine; other scientists won't let them get away with that”.
You mentioned the contents of scientific literature being the results of careful research.
You are really not serious. Your head must be in the sand.
Please desist from exposing your ignorance and stupidity.
Everything relating to astronomy, i.e .the Standard Model has been exposed to denote a catalogue of assumption and lies, invariably maintained to acquire funding surely to be misused to create further lies.
The accepted teaching has now been proved to be a whole lot of rubbish.
I apologise for my technical terminology but what else can I call it?
Black Holes the Big Bang, Pulsars, Neutron Stars and the rest of the stuff has been proved to be a catalogue of fairy tales.
Einstein theory of relativity has been proved to have been wrong from day one, as has Hawking’s Time and Big Bang Theories.
It is not so much that they are all in error they are not even close and fortunately I will not have to suffer that idiotic utterance “the time space continuum, anymore”
Dark Matter was a figment of a wild imagination and now surely put to bed, and the existence of the Higgs Boson is another finding that is accepted because funnily it cannot be disproved, and you clowns slag me.
Who controls the experiment? CERN?
Get real.

The expanding universe is not expanding, the prediction that red shift denotes the distance the object is from us is in the same category, junk but many of you are qualified in this rubbish, and even teach it.
So do not spout your garbage to me.
Invariably it will be found that gyroscope theory is just about as accurate if the Standard Model is anything to go by.

Incidentally the last time I met these very generous and charming persons they were practicing Scientologists, I am not sure about raving, what do you mean by that, which in no way was foist or encouraged on me.
I have no complaints at all while I was working with them.
If everyone else was as pleasant as the Carrolls that would be nice

Of course like the cowardly breed you are, you are now attempting to character assassinate usually with half- truths and lies
Is this the start of the Fisher style attack which starts when all else fails.
Best of luck to you
Sandy Kidd

Report Abuse
Add an Answer >>
Website. Copyright © 2019 Glenn Turner. All rights reserved. site info
Do not copy without prior permission. Click here for gyroscope products