Gyroscopic Behaviour refuting notions of Gravity

Over the past ten or so years I have been fascinated by the behavioural characteristics of gyroscopes, centrifugal force, and gravity. I do not have a scientific background outside of high school. However, I have always been interested in dreaming up new, fantastical ideas and experiments that I rarely pursue. This series of videos has peaked my interest and the ideas in my head are swirling. I just had to share them with you all in the hopes that maybe some of my ideas may be shared by other members..... such as gyroscopic gravity fields. If you have not thought about any of this before, I would like you to watch and share your input on the subject anyway. There is about an hour's worth of videos so I do not expect immediate responses. This is a very fascinating subject and I hope there are individuals around who will take the time to watch.

The lecture is presented by Professor Eric Laithwaite in 1974 at the Royal institute of London, UK. It covers a controversial look at the behaviour of gyroscopes in an attempt to challenge Newton's laws.











Now I am not going to say whether or not I think this man's theory is correct, but it does demonstrate some of the very odd principles that gyroscopes exhibit. I will go so far to say that I believe gyroscopic principals are indeed our ticket to the cosmos..... Enjoy!

a reply to: HiMyNameIsCal

Without delving into the lectures I want to say I saw something the other day. My nephew brought over Sphero, the robotic ball and demonstrated it for us. I was enthralled with certain aspects of it. You said something about…

I will go so far to say that I believe gyroscopic principals are indeed our ticket to the cosmos.

That was my thinking when I watched the ball navigate on the floor by remote. Add one more dimension and its a UFO.

Upon close approach Travis Walton claimed he could here the "craft" making low pitched and hi whines like machinery. He said the thing hovered with a slight wobble…


…theres your sign.

a reply to: HiMyNameIsCal

When I saw your headline, I instantly thought of the presentation by Prof. Lithwaite at the Royal Institute. I was ready to start digging for my copy with the address, but I see that you have brought his lecture to light. I've always wanted to attempt that simple experiment of his, but always got sidetracked.

A lot of the anti-gravity experiments that were on-going in the early 1960 (because of the presence of UFOs) disappeared or went under cover. So too it seems to have happened with Lithwaite's simple suggestions and equally simple experiment that he proved in front of his peers that night. Science in principle is so super hypercritical to anything that threatens its established standards. Of course, some of that can be the Science work but some may be a (deemed) necessary and enforced secrecy to keep new, even basic scientific discoveries, under wraps.

An

a reply to: intrptr
Wow, that is a fascinating piece of kit! From this article I gather that this little thing probably works on some of the principles demonstrated in the lecture.

There's a gyroscope and an accelerometer that talk to your tablet (or phone or what have you) and two little rubber wheels. The sensors give yaw, pitch and roll information to whatever app you're playing with so that the computer knows what Sphero is up to -- that little sneak. A counterweight (you can think of it as a tiny Kevin James, if it helps) gets the mechanism moving when you tell it to.

HowStuffWorks

a reply to: HiMyNameIsCal

Great thread, the outside of a gyroscope is moving at relative velocity far faster than the inside and from Einsteins law's of relativity that means that time for the outside of the disc is moveing slower than time for the centre of the disc, as the whole structure moves as one object there is a vortices created in which time rather than gravity is warped so that gravity acts at a slower rate on the disc than the spindle.
There were some rumours in a book called the hunt for zero point by Nick Cook a former Janes Aviation weekly journalist whom became interested in the secret development of the Nazi's during WW2 and in one of there experiment's whitness saw a ring of mercury at a plasmatic state being rotated extremely fast as the Nazi's performed some form of experimentation, Organic material was placed on a static location within this spinning plasma and apparently seemed to age extremely fast so it is possible they were trying to created a vortex with a localized island of time within but it was no time machine as either time or some magnetic radiation of some kind degraded the material at it's center.
It is possible they were working on a branch of field physics that we have not persued in the civil sector after they were defeated but it is also possible they were attempting to warp either gravity or time for some purpose and though I say it affects relative time for the object from the center out to the rotations rim of the disc it is also true that while time and gravity are different forces that like everything else Gravity has a symbiotic relationship with time so slower time means lower gravity but does it actually slow the gravity or merely force it to warp around it.


Ignore my bunkum, fantastic lecture footage from one of the old school common sense british boffin's and well worth anyone time to watch.

a reply to: HiMyNameIsCal

All I know about gyroscopes and gravity are Gravity Probe-A and Gravity Probe-B. It wasn't until recently we had the technology to build VERY sensitive instruments to measure one of Einstein's theories.

a reply to: HiMyNameIsCal

Having found those lectures years ago, I tried to find out what became of his experiments and works. Apparently, he was forced to refute his work and apologize and never work on gyroscopes again, all in a rather suspicious manner that would seem to indicate he was treading where he wasn't appreciated by higher powers. The speed with which this all happened, from long years of study to sudden halting and no longer speaking of his work, I think he was on to something but attention was not wanted in that area by various agencies or governments.

Gyroscopes, Angular momentum ... fascinating stuff. Thanks for the thread!
I saw the principles uncovered in this lecture, from 1986. And as the teacher puts it.. "it's time we have a little torque"

a reply to: jaxnmarko
I actually just came upon a very interesting patent from Prof. Laithwaite and William Dawson. In the process of trying to wrap my head around this device I happened to notice a familiar name. It kind of made me do a double take.

Laithwaite began working on the motor about six months ago after Edwin Rickman, who works with an electrical engineering firm, came to him with the idea. Rickman had patented it after he said it came to him in recurring dreams. Laithwaite incorporated in the device ideas of another amateur inventor, Alex Jones.

Rex Research
I'm not sure if it is the same Alex Jones but if so can anyone please enlighten me as to what device they are referring to?

As to the patent itself, it seems to make use of the same gyroscopic principles demonstrated in his earlier lectures. Just put into an elaborate layout to create forward thrust. If you did not want to watch the lecture here is a short video by him to demonstrate the basic idea.

I would appreciate a summary of what the theory is about since not anyone has the time/nerves to watch several youtube videos.

In that regards, I just learned recently that science does not actually accurately understand how and why a bike is actually standing upright and not tipping over. This is probably noteworthy to mention.

There was one theory that the wheel rotation would help hold a bike up-right, but then they built a bike that was countering those forces and the bike STILL doesn't just tip over. Maybe related.

originally posted by: HiMyNameIsCal
The lecture is presented by Professor Eric Laithwaite in 1974 at the Royal institute of London, UK. It covers a controversial look at the behaviour of gyroscopes in an attempt to challenge Newton's laws.

There's no controversy anymore that I'm aware of. Everyone, including Professor Eric Laithwaite said this is wrong.

This lecture does have a dubious distinction though. Apparently it was the only time "an invited lecture to the Royal Institution has not been published".

Eric Laithwaite

(This was the first and only time an invited lecture to the Royal Institution has not been published.) They were subsequently published independently as 'Engineer Through The Looking-Glass'

Despite this rejection and despite the fact that Laithwaite later acknowledged that gyroscopes behave fully in accord with Newtonian mechanics, he continued to explore gyroscopic behaviour, maintaining the belief that some form of reactionless propulsion could be derived from them.

You might find some explanations in this video.


And here's what happens when he's standing on a scale.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
I would appreciate a summary of what the theory is about since not anyone has the time/nerves to watch several youtube videos.

In that regards, I just learned recently that science does not actually accurately understand how and why a bike is actually standing upright and not tipping over. This is probably noteworthy to mention.

There was one theory that the wheel rotation would help hold a bike up-right, but then they built a bike that was countering those forces and the bike STILL doesn't just tip over. Maybe related.

The gyroscopic force of the spinning wheel isn't nearly enough to hold up a bike - I could easily ride at 2 mph, very little gyroscopic force. It was a rather dumb old theory.

BTW, it seems a bike is held up by "steering into the fall". A bike with a locked headset (steering) can't be ridden.

Also, painfully proved it once by inadvertently touching the the opposite side hand to the handlebar - other hand off the bars - (right hand on left side of bar or left hand on right side of bar) - at which point one involuntarily steers "away from the fall" and immediately dumps the bike. Please - Don't try it, you go down fast!

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed
a reply to: NickK3
Since neither of you posted any sources to back up what you're talking about I can only respond according to what I know about gyroscopes.

There is a lesson to be learned here from Laithwaite, which is that we shouldn't be so quick to reject a theory which we don't fully understand ourselves (which is essentially what Laithwaite did). When Newton's theory was explained to him in more detail and how it was consistent with his observations, then he finally agreed his observations didn't contradict Newtonian mechanics.

It sounds wrong to say that gyroscopic effects either do or do not hold up a bicycle. When the slowest bicycle ride in the Guinness book of world records was Dave Steed on a bicycle with zero velocity for nine hours, obviously the gyroscopic effects were zero, so obviously other things can hold up the bicycle (like the rider's balance). But when the bicycle is moving, the gyroscopic effects do help to stabilize the bicycle, but it's only one factor among many.

You could also put this gyroscope on a kid's bicycle instead of training wheels and it does help to stabilize the bicycle as the demonstration infers:

Gyrowheel by Gyrobike interbike 2009

Gyroscopes are fun (and actually very useful). However, they have nothing (at all) to do with gravity.

a reply to: Phage

Not to play symentic here phage but motion increased relative mass, but slows its relative time, this second part of einsteins theory was proven using extremely accurate time keeping devices and it was supported by evidence showing the time piece in motion at high altitude (further out on the wheel of the gyroscope) has past less time by a minute fraction of a second.
Now of course this is time and increased mass relative to the core of the gyroscope should also compensate but the whole mass weight of the gyroscope stays constant so the mass at the centre must be lowered while the mass at the outside of the fly wheel disc must be raised, time at the centre therefore should be perhaps speeded up and time at the outside slowed down compensating also in a kind of time vortex which itself should have a warping effect, not an anti gravity effect though on time, were gravity is slowed along with time at the outer edges of the fly wheel but the centre of the fly wheel must act as a focal point and the time gravit vortex is equalized there thus overall time and gravity are unaffected but from point a to point b there is a differential which is compensated for and this in turn would explain why a gyroscope trys to spin at right angles to the source of the gravity and why it is able to stand on it's point, call it procession if you like but time and gravity are the key players when factoring in relative motion and mass.
Remember time on a geostationary satellite moves very slightly slower than time at the ground beneath it due to relative velocitys and it is essentially like a point on a gyroscopes outer wheel.

a reply to: NickK3

Correct, but at 2 mph it is not gyroscopic effect that keeps the bike upright, it is the balancing ability of a human being to continually adjust the position of the front steering wheel, and the uncanny ability of a human (animal) to maintain balance with careful movement.

Your example is more of the amazing ability of animals to balance, rather than of any gyroscopic effect.

One does not need to make those corrections at speed however, as gyroscopic effect comes into "Balance" .

a reply to: NickK3

Never heard of that steering into the fall theory. Sounds like a best fit scenario.

So how about a unicycle? What happens? Steering is technically just from pivoting of the body twisting I guess? So hmmm. *head hurts*

When I approach a junction on my bike I stop....but don't put my feet down. Clearly my bike riding has more to do with balance than gyroscopes. That said, at speed, a bike is much easier to control which is when the gyroscope affect kicks in.

As for Mr Laithwaite, I remember him from years ago. He used to be on TV explaining his gyroscope theories. Shame that he didn't fully understand the mechanics and forces of objects in circular motion which would have saved him considerable embarrasment.

originally posted by: Qumulys
a reply to: NickK3

Never heard of that steering into the fall theory. Sounds like a best fit scenario.

So how about a unicycle? What happens? Steering is technically just from pivoting of the body twisting I guess? So hmmm. *head hurts*

You would lean into turns like a snowboard, motorcycle etc. same with riding a bicycle with no hands, the direction you lean is the direction you turn. Also with riding a bike with no hands, the steering adjusts itself at a certain speed like a gyroscope, go below that speed and the steering turns in on itself and down you go.