https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/status/2000113350374818290Professor Eric Laithwaite shows what happens when a very heavy wheel (20 kg) is spun up to 2,500 rpm.Look at the old man in the video.Think of the spinning wheel as a rocket body.Think the old man's hand representing propellant lift.He CANNOT lift it with ONE hand WITHOUT rotation.He CAN lift it with ONE hand WITH rotation.or more precisely,He CAN lift it with TWO hands WITH STRUGGLING, WITHOUT rotation.He CANNOT lift it with ONE hand WITHOUT STRUGGLING, WITHOUT rotation.He CAN lift it with ONE hand WITHOUT STRUGGLING at all, WITH rotation!Work put in to lift is W = F × dThe force is clearly *less* than when lifting normally.W_with_spin = F_with_spin × dW_no_spin = F_no_spin × dF_with_spin < F_no_spin,W_with_spin < W_no_spin.In the end you lose rotational energy by lifting it this way, and clearly rotational energy was translated into work/lift energy; or, more likely is that lift inertia was reduced!Now imagine your entire rocket is rotating like the wheel (e.g. fuel), and the end of the rod is where the burners are (shooting opposite of where you want to go).A spinning rocket/wheel can be lifted with LESS PROPELLANT.Again,He can NOT lift it with one hand without rotation.He CAN lift it with one hand with rotation.--> A SPINNING ROCKET/WHEEL CAN BE LIFTED WITH LESS PROPELLANT!Either the gyroscopic effect is translating rotation energy into lateral movement work, or, it is reducing the lateral/upward movement inertia.
In the following video Veritasium shows that the weight does not change whether or not a gyroscope rotates.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLMpdBjA2SUhttps://youtu.be/GeyDf4ooPdo?t=116 <-- (see how hard it is with one hand!)And concludes that even though it feels lighter, it is not lighter.What he missed is that you need to apply additional *upwards* force/jerk beyond the g-force to get the desired lift effect.Professor Eric Laithwaite gave it "higher precession" AND jerked it upward and continued pushing.Veritasium only gave the gyroscope "higher precession" on the scale. There was no additional force beyond the g-scale, there was no extra lift. There was no jerking upwards, no overall upwards movement.In one, the hand lifts upwards AND the spinning weight. On the scale, the axle does not lift upwards, only the spinning weight.What Professor Eric Laithwaite did and what Veritasium showed on the scale are different.-----Now imagine you have this in space with no gravity.As for how to get a rocket/wheel to rotate in space in the first place... start with two rocket/wheels and counter-rotate them, now you have two rocket/wheels to work with.Why not lift without any propellant?https://x.com/jaekwon/status/2000571260494127526-----https://x.com/jaekwon/status/2000414075000418399https://imgur.com/a/kUsQ1Ka
> That's not how it works at all.> You don't have to apply any *upward* force/jerk to get the lift.> it's the rotation of the man that translates the rotation of the flywheel into a perpendicular force upward.Nope. As you can see on the scale, the added rotation does not change the weight of the total system.On the scale the wheel lifts, but the axle remains stationary and therefore the wheel itself rotates (not lifts) upwards.This again is different than what the professor did. The wheel does not rotate vertically and the axle also lifts.I'm not saying I can explain what is happening with newtonian physics which I am familiar with.It boggles my own mind. Because I *CAN* understand gyroscopic forces somewhat intuitively based on independent component forces applied to parts of the axle--there is force from the axle and this creates counter-force from the wheel and there is some equilibrium.I understand the reflex to say that there is nothing new under the sun, and all can be explained by newtonian physics.But we also learned of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics which are BEYOND newtonian physics.There is something new here with the professor's demonstration.The best working theory I currently have is that the laws of gravity are modified by a spinning body when the body is rotated-within-rotation (wheel within a wheel, as in Ezekiel's wheels, or Ophanim).Whether this applies only to gravity (general relativity) or whether it works in space without gravity, I do not know yet.Gravity is strange because while it does exert a force upon a body (general relativity where gravity is acceleration), usually acceleration comes from another moving body that is affected likewise.Of course the earth is likewise affected by the wheel, but perhaps the massive disparity in mass between the wheel and earth, and the fact that the wheel rotates relative to the much more stationary earth has an effect of canceling the gravity.
>>41674163Note that the earth rotates against the massive earth, but it is in free-fall motion, and there is not the same kind of force exerted by the axle upon the wheel to the earth.The wheel is not rotating around the earth.These might be relevant.
In other words, my top working hypothesis is that this is an exception to general relativity with gravity, but NOT an effect that exists outside of gravity.You can of course have Newtonian physics without gravity but still have effective gravity by imagining a tether from center of mass to each object. Perhaps in this faux-gravity non-general-relativity Newtonian world this gyroscopic lift effect does not exist.The other working hypothesis is that this exists even without general relativity. That is, that this lift effect would still be present in outer space as reduction of inertial when exerted correctly.But it may be the case that it only works in outer space because of the mass distributed throughout the whole universe, and everything moves relative to that frame of reference.I haven't calculated what the total gravitation mass of all of the external universe is compared to that of the earth. Of course the external universe gravity is canceled out but it's still interesting to calculate the sum of the magnitude of all forces as scalar values, not canceled out to zero.
If what I'm saying has any sense to it, unless the energy of the wheel is being transferred to lift (which I don't believe is the case because the bearings are probably good), it means we may be able to get "free" energy by lifting a wheel up, and then dropping it again ad infinitum.It may not actually be "free" however; e.g. it could affect the rotation of the earth and slow it down. Conservation of energy is still possible.
> It may not actually be "free" however; e.g. it could affect the rotation of the earth and slow it down. Conservation of energy is still possible.So here is a refinement of my hypothesis:That it works because the earth rotates around the Sun (or rotates relative to the observable universe); this is intuitively interesting because the wheel is also rotating within rotation as well.So it may be some effect of energy transfer from dual-rotating bodies, to another dual-rotating body.The Dzhanibekov Effect comes to mind but it seems different as that affect is still zero sum energy locally.
Or, **perhaps a dual-rotating body such as the wheel creates its own frame of inertial and reduces the effect of gravity upon it. This would be much more surprising, but is related to the US UFO patent that expired; though in that patent there is only single-rotation, so maybe that's enough.**But that patent alleges a high amount of required energy. If it actually works, it might be optimized for lower energy with dual rotation. Or, maybe high energy of single-rotation is required to affect surrounding objects, while dual-rotation of an object is more effective for itself but limited to itself.
science youtuber psychosis
>>41674154it's using magnets
>>41674154>a very heavy wheel>20 kg/x/ is peak comedy
>>41674154Glad you are finally catching on.Gyroscopic?Overcome mass gravity for less by using rotation to generate electricity? Heheh. >to be continued
>>41675602record yourself holding a 20kg weight the way he did, you clown
>>41675617I guess.
