The physics of gyroscopes is already well-understood, with credit given to the folks who invented vector analysis. There is no hint of a challenge to Newton's third law of motion as Laithwaite erroneously claims. Just as a force is defined as the first time derivative of momentum, so torque is defined as the first time derivative of angular momentum. From the perspective of vector quantities, the behavior of gyroscopes makes perfect sense.
@noeuro It is clear from the re-enacted demonstrations depicted in this film clip that Laithwaite, a respected electrical engineer, was trying to cast doubt on the conventional scientific wisdom about gyroscopes, even suggesting that gyroscopes lose weight when they're spinning. It's no wonder the scientific community was up in arms.
@scasired I understand what you're saying. However, that is what Laithwaite was pushing for explanation. Instead of being bothered to investigate and actually do the math, his peers simply ignored the issued and branded him a heretic. (Where have we seen this before?) If you watch the film to the end you will see that 25 years later Laithewaite and a fellow scientist managed to complete the math to show what is happening and that the effect does not violate any of Newton's laws.
@noeuro Gyroscopes behave exactly as the physics text book says they should. There is no mystery. No unsolved equations. Laithwaite lost respect and his good reputation, not because he was making claims about gyroscopes that went 'against the tide', but because he was making claims that were in direct conflict with long-established and well-understood laws of physics.
@scasired Yes you're not really understanding what I'm getting at here. Laithwaite understood that there were no new forces involved and that the mathematics of gyroscopes is well established. You really ought to watch the rest of the film, especially the end where they actually do the needed experiments at an academic institution. Nobody is challenging any of the laws of physics. Especially not the late Professor Laithwaite.
We know that these gyro's do in fact follow Newton, but the question remains that if a craft could achieve a circular spin like that of a gyroscope, then the implication is that it would take very little energy to propel it upwards like a ufo. No need for primitive rocket propulsion. If an electric engine could maintain the spin with something like a nuclear reactor, the upward push could be done with any number of means?
the british scientific community has done great injustice to this man. someday, they will havve to issue apology to his surviving relatives, and his lecture be finaly published. when? when it is proven that gyroscope is the way for the real inertial propulsion system.
lol you really are an idiot then - that is the typical 'sheep' mentality most humans unfortunately have. Science, physics, and intelligence are certainly all things that one would have to be drooling and beating their head against a wall to refute. Good luck lol.
didnt i say i dont give a shit fuck you and yes i am ignorant to all of this bullshiz but i can see you are a used and dry douche (by the way i am a major in physiology, but i think i wasted my time and am now trying to redeem it so fuck off
I am a joiner and work with many different types of handheld power tools. The phenomana of "levitation" is one I have experienced many times while working with such tools,but have yet to find a satisfactory explanation for this. Can you help?
What is evolution ?? And what is the evolution of science ?? So silly that we may simply believe that the fundamental faces of science would never change,why on earth shouldn't they ??
All avenues of science are branches to the same tree and leaves of the same seed, no challenge is insurmountable and no question unsolvable..if we know every rule at this moment then the evolution of science is complete..when you build walls and are confined by them you become blind to all else that surrounds you.
read a few text books look up a few new topics and come back to me and tell me things don't change and the "SOLID FACTS" have never changed we break and redefine our understanding or science all the time.
Shit man if anyone here doesn't agree with that then....i dunno but, you probably don't know what your talking about. Your an asshole so good luck with that.
Well damn i have written several comments and none have shown up...umm sooo fuck it. We all hold our own opinions, arguing is pointless, Your right "solid facts don't change; they get added onto."...and one way or another unless we all die, we will be living out those science fiction books or at least parts of them whether we believe it or not... the wheel was after all one hell of an invention when it hit the streets. So who gives a shit what is, is ..so best of luck to you.
The difference between yours and mine are that mine are based in reality."
LoL ...NRen2k5 this comment is it ???
Haha you even removed it.
Michio Kaku the book is called Pysics of the Impossible, maybe this will help explain and i think would be greatly beneficial. This is not a panacea for this topic but it will shed a little more light. OR don't read it and well hold the same opinion with out all the facts. Good luck to you.
ur a homo hangten1969 is right u are ignorant and need to stop having flame wars with people who are trying to make a point u silly little homosexual husband of elton john
However, our knowledge of physics in general is still in its infancy.
I am no priest (soliris) of conventional science but instead look forward to the results of research today and tomorrow.
We will gain much through a better understanding of the nature of gravity, light, electrons and magnetism. How, for example, are gravity and light inter-related? Is there a link resembling that between eletrons and magnetism?
In 1904 Traian Vuia began building the engine, also his own invention. In same year he got a patent for his invention in UK. So not only the Royal Institute for Science did act against the progress, but Academie de Sciences of Paris too. Are we facing stupidity or a giant conspiracy against progress and humanity ????!
On Feb.16th 1903 the romanian Traian Vuia sent a project to the Academie de Sciences of Paris presenting the possibility of flying with a heavier-than-air mechanical machine and his procedure for taking off but it was rejected for being utopian, adding the comments "the problem of flight with a machine which weighs more than air can not be solved and it is only a dream". In the winter of 1902-1903 Traian Vuia began to build the flying machine.
I cant believe a scientist of his caliber couldnt figure out something that was so simple. The spinning wheel appeared to lose weight because its weight is being distributed side ways instead of straight down while spinning. Just like a plane or any propulsion object would. Instead of putting force in one direction like a jet a wheel applies force in all directions making the central weight weigh less. Yes it does make an object lose weight vertically but it cant escape the laws of gravity.
Yes, that is sort of right. A shot put thrower does the same thing; The centripetal force has a component in the opposite direction to the wieght which causes it to rise and so appear lighter. Of course the centripetal force of the gyroscope arises because of it's precessing.
Prof.Laithwaite posed a problem to us. Hoe does a gyroscope stay up. I have asked many scientists to tell me. They can not show the mathematics. They can not explain it in terms of gravity. They fail to explain it using Physics. I thought that I had solved the puzzle but no-one believed me. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps we will never know if I was right. One thing is clear in my mind - Laithwaite was very intelligent and challenged us ALL to question. Not bad.
The late madness of Laithwaite does mean nothing for us. Curiously Wilhelm Reich was given as fool, and Schauberger, too, and Tesla...
Our ambitions do know any limits; WE are the searchers of the third millenium and you are the priests of the second one...Except Laithwaite, Schauberger, Shipov, Veinik..(Similar experiences, similar protocol)
We tell in France : rira bien qui rira le dernier and I can translate : "which one will laugh the latest, will be the winner "
En réponse à un message privé de Flowerb., qui affirme que L. était un malade mental et que l'anti-G n'existe pas: Puérils vos arguments ; Je suis d'accord avec vous, d'ailleurs "les matériaux plus lourds que l'air ne peuvent pas voler", "un bateau en fer ne peut pas flotter", "une fusée dans le vide spatial ne peut avancer", "un bateau face au vent ne peut que reculer", et ma grand-mère malade ne peut que perdre au Loto. 'L'observation de ce qui est entraîne sa propre génération'
Oh mon Dieu! Laithwaite était idiot, peut-être même congénital ? Quelle chance, tu es venu dans notre vie, Flowerbower.
J'en profite pour parler ici aux personnes plus sérieuses, celles qui commencent à comprendre l'antigravité: celui qui la possède peut défier l'armée chinoise, russe et américaine réunies avec un staff de 15 personnes..
Par Jupiter! Eric Laithwaite a été chassé de la Royal Society pour avoir trouvé des évènements 'gyroscopiques' indépendants ET supérieurs à la troisième loi de Newton...
Que les 'scientists' officiels tremblent dans leur pantalon: nous étudions ses théories, ainsi que celles de Shipov, Kozyrev, Podkletnov... et nos conclusions sont pour le moins ...ETRANGES.
Laithwaite etait idiot, et tous ses 'croyants' sont aussi bete que lui. Il n'y a rien d'etrange chez les gyroscopes - seul des fous qui ne comprennent point la science archi-simple!
There is nothing to explain. He gave his notorious gyroscope lectures to children and laymen, who knew no better. An audience of physicists would have fought each other to be the first to explain to him what an idiot he was. The basic trick of 'hurrying-on the precession' has been known ever since gyroscopes were invented, and can be explained in terms of energy minimization: believe it or not, the system of a spinning gyroscope swung in a circle has a lower total energy in the
[cont] raised position. A spun egg also rises up on end in order to minimise energy.
At all times, the total weight of the gyroscope is supported by Laithwaite's hand and is entirely manageable. The stunt LOOKS amazing because the layman naturally imagines the huge moment that would exist about his hand IF everything were stationary. But there is effectively no such moment while the gyroscope is spinning.
BTW, elementary physics textbooks usually describe gyroscope motion very badly ...
[cont] and say, for instance, that the movement of the gyroscope axis is at 90 degrees to the imposed (gravitational) force. This is untrue, but many 'antigravity' patents have been based upon that misapprehension.
Textbooks also often imply that the gyroscope's axis is the same as the axis of the rotational inertia vector. This is true only in very special situations. Finally, please remember that a respected and genuine professor can still be a crackpot. There are many such cases.
That all makes sence. So was Laithwaite faking it when he couldn't lift the thing very high, or is there another explination as to why he could swing it around his head?
Yes, all part of his schtick. He was nothing but a showman (like Tesla), and he is perhaps the worst known case of the nightmare scenario of a crackpot being given official access to impressionable young minds.
He also knew that still shots of his antics would look even more impressive to the layman. Note that it required no extra effort to lift it high above his head: this is known as the Kelvin Effect, aka 'hurrying-on the precession'. It is like a 'self-working' magic trick.
ok, so what is going on here? Why can he lift the wheel? It seems so easy to recreate this experiment, has anyone done this yet??
w3bst3r123 6 months ago
Professor Eric Laithwaite. Genius.
Only remembered, apparently, for gyroscopes. I remember seeing him demonstrate his linear motor on the BBC Christmas Lectures. Genius.
payitforwardeddie 1 year ago
The physics of gyroscopes is already well-understood, with credit given to the folks who invented vector analysis. There is no hint of a challenge to Newton's third law of motion as Laithwaite erroneously claims. Just as a force is defined as the first time derivative of momentum, so torque is defined as the first time derivative of angular momentum. From the perspective of vector quantities, the behavior of gyroscopes makes perfect sense.
scasired 1 year ago
@scasired if you watched the entire film you would know that Laithwaite did not claim any violation of Newton's 3rd law.
noeuro 1 year ago
@noeuro It is clear from the re-enacted demonstrations depicted in this film clip that Laithwaite, a respected electrical engineer, was trying to cast doubt on the conventional scientific wisdom about gyroscopes, even suggesting that gyroscopes lose weight when they're spinning. It's no wonder the scientific community was up in arms.
scasired 1 year ago
@scasired I understand what you're saying. However, that is what Laithwaite was pushing for explanation. Instead of being bothered to investigate and actually do the math, his peers simply ignored the issued and branded him a heretic. (Where have we seen this before?) If you watch the film to the end you will see that 25 years later Laithewaite and a fellow scientist managed to complete the math to show what is happening and that the effect does not violate any of Newton's laws.
noeuro 1 year ago
@noeuro Gyroscopes behave exactly as the physics text book says they should. There is no mystery. No unsolved equations. Laithwaite lost respect and his good reputation, not because he was making claims about gyroscopes that went 'against the tide', but because he was making claims that were in direct conflict with long-established and well-understood laws of physics.
scasired 1 year ago
@scasired Yes you're not really understanding what I'm getting at here. Laithwaite understood that there were no new forces involved and that the mathematics of gyroscopes is well established. You really ought to watch the rest of the film, especially the end where they actually do the needed experiments at an academic institution. Nobody is challenging any of the laws of physics. Especially not the late Professor Laithwaite.
noeuro 1 year ago 2
We know that these gyro's do in fact follow Newton, but the question remains that if a craft could achieve a circular spin like that of a gyroscope, then the implication is that it would take very little energy to propel it upwards like a ufo. No need for primitive rocket propulsion. If an electric engine could maintain the spin with something like a nuclear reactor, the upward push could be done with any number of means?
vexamatic 1 year ago 2
How can so many "scientists" reject all that is old whenever it's convenient and then hang onto Newton as if he were infallible?
Surely old apple-head(be offended if you must) would step back and look at the current telescopes,microscopes and computers and think,
" Hmmm,there may be more to all this than I thought ! "
Call him "SIR"(but not "saint") and make him infallible....
Sound familiar?
Must we always exalt man&his opinions instead of God?
(not to be confused with mere religion,of course!)
jetpoweredgriffin 1 year ago
@flowerbower
Tesla was no mere showman.
A/C current?
Tesla coil?
Tesla units in MRI's?
Niagra Falls- the first Hydroelectric power plant?
What have you invented or patented?
As for Laithwaite,their complaint was not the content of his lecture,it was that he dared to question their dogma.
Come on,a man(Newton) that lived before electricity and real microscopes decrees laws that CANNOT be broken?
And people say religion is dogmatic.
jetpoweredgriffin 2 years ago 7
Great video, thank you. I've read some of Laithwaite's books on heavy electrical engineering, and he's a sharp guy for sure.
fgleich 2 years ago
the british scientific community has done great injustice to this man. someday, they will havve to issue apology to his surviving relatives, and his lecture be finaly published. when? when it is proven that gyroscope is the way for the real inertial propulsion system.
0085310782 2 years ago
lol
HangTen1969 2 years ago
i love all of you but fuck science, fuck physics, and fuck intelligence call me ignorant but ok I DONT GIVE A FUCK HANGTEN AND FUCK WOODSTOCK
Jpar4525 2 years ago
lol you really are an idiot then - that is the typical 'sheep' mentality most humans unfortunately have. Science, physics, and intelligence are certainly all things that one would have to be drooling and beating their head against a wall to refute. Good luck lol.
jaywilliams2005 2 years ago
didnt i say i dont give a shit fuck you and yes i am ignorant to all of this bullshiz but i can see you are a used and dry douche (by the way i am a major in physiology, but i think i wasted my time and am now trying to redeem it so fuck off
Jpar4525 2 years ago
i hate you
Jpar4525 2 years ago
I am a joiner and work with many different types of handheld power tools. The phenomana of "levitation" is one I have experienced many times while working with such tools,but have yet to find a satisfactory explanation for this. Can you help?
beanoboy222 2 years ago
What is evolution ?? And what is the evolution of science ?? So silly that we may simply believe that the fundamental faces of science would never change,why on earth shouldn't they ??
All avenues of science are branches to the same tree and leaves of the same seed, no challenge is insurmountable and no question unsolvable..if we know every rule at this moment then the evolution of science is complete..when you build walls and are confined by them you become blind to all else that surrounds you.
HangTen1969 3 years ago
Science never changes. Only our understanding does.
It just so happens that our understanding of thermodynamics is so solid that it can't be overturned.
NRen2k5 2 years ago
And it just so happens that adding a cocky comment does nothing for a conversation...so don't waste my time.
HangTen1969 2 years ago
I'm the cocky one... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
NRen2k5 2 years ago
read a few text books look up a few new topics and come back to me and tell me things don't change and the "SOLID FACTS" have never changed we break and redefine our understanding or science all the time.
Shit man if anyone here doesn't agree with that then....i dunno but, you probably don't know what your talking about. Your an asshole so good luck with that.
HangTen1969 2 years ago
The solid facts don't change; they get added on to.
Well, go on, keep shadowboxing. Fuck you.
But a word to the wise: if YOU'RE going to insult someone's intelligence, try not to make any serious spelling mistakes in doing so!!
NRen2k5 2 years ago
Well damn i have written several comments and none have shown up...umm sooo fuck it. We all hold our own opinions, arguing is pointless, Your right "solid facts don't change; they get added onto."...and one way or another unless we all die, we will be living out those science fiction books or at least parts of them whether we believe it or not... the wheel was after all one hell of an invention when it hit the streets. So who gives a shit what is, is ..so best of luck to you.
HangTen1969 2 years ago
Comment removed
NRen2k5 2 years ago
"Yes, we all hold our own opinions.
The difference between yours and mine are that mine are based in reality."
LoL ...NRen2k5 this comment is it ???
Haha you even removed it.
Michio Kaku the book is called Pysics of the Impossible, maybe this will help explain and i think would be greatly beneficial. This is not a panacea for this topic but it will shed a little more light. OR don't read it and well hold the same opinion with out all the facts. Good luck to you.
HangTen1969 2 years ago
ur a homo hangten1969 is right u are ignorant and need to stop having flame wars with people who are trying to make a point u silly little homosexual husband of elton john
Jpar4525 2 years ago
itd be lovely to see how laithwaite and walter russell would go together, in regards the views of both into gyroscopes.
youarelackluster 3 years ago
The physics of gyros is well understood.
However, our knowledge of physics in general is still in its infancy.
I am no priest (soliris) of conventional science but instead look forward to the results of research today and tomorrow.
We will gain much through a better understanding of the nature of gravity, light, electrons and magnetism. How, for example, are gravity and light inter-related? Is there a link resembling that between eletrons and magnetism?
LifesVoyager 3 years ago
Conservation of angular momentum
PlanetaryAlliance 3 years ago
In 1904 Traian Vuia began building the engine, also his own invention. In same year he got a patent for his invention in UK. So not only the Royal Institute for Science did act against the progress, but Academie de Sciences of Paris too. Are we facing stupidity or a giant conspiracy against progress and humanity ????!
coolltool 3 years ago
On Feb.16th 1903 the romanian Traian Vuia sent a project to the Academie de Sciences of Paris presenting the possibility of flying with a heavier-than-air mechanical machine and his procedure for taking off but it was rejected for being utopian, adding the comments "the problem of flight with a machine which weighs more than air can not be solved and it is only a dream". In the winter of 1902-1903 Traian Vuia began to build the flying machine.
coolltool 3 years ago
I cant believe a scientist of his caliber couldnt figure out something that was so simple. The spinning wheel appeared to lose weight because its weight is being distributed side ways instead of straight down while spinning. Just like a plane or any propulsion object would. Instead of putting force in one direction like a jet a wheel applies force in all directions making the central weight weigh less. Yes it does make an object lose weight vertically but it cant escape the laws of gravity.
lineage13 3 years ago
Yes, that is sort of right. A shot put thrower does the same thing; The centripetal force has a component in the opposite direction to the wieght which causes it to rise and so appear lighter. Of course the centripetal force of the gyroscope arises because of it's precessing.
BarriosGroupie 3 years ago
Prof.Laithwaite posed a problem to us. Hoe does a gyroscope stay up. I have asked many scientists to tell me. They can not show the mathematics. They can not explain it in terms of gravity. They fail to explain it using Physics. I thought that I had solved the puzzle but no-one believed me. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps we will never know if I was right. One thing is clear in my mind - Laithwaite was very intelligent and challenged us ALL to question. Not bad.
philomorphologian 3 years ago
Hi LifesVoyager
The late madness of Laithwaite does mean nothing for us. Curiously Wilhelm Reich was given as fool, and Schauberger, too, and Tesla...
Our ambitions do know any limits; WE are the searchers of the third millenium and you are the priests of the second one...Except Laithwaite, Schauberger, Shipov, Veinik..(Similar experiences, similar protocol)
We tell in France : rira bien qui rira le dernier and I can translate : "which one will laugh the latest, will be the winner "
soliris 3 years ago
I met Laithewaite in the late 60s; he was a pioneer of magnetic levitation for monorail transport - a very capable man.
Sadly, he lost it in later years and clearly didn't understand how gyros work. He was subsequently interviewed decrying Posidrive (Phillips) screws.
I guess even the greats are subject to aging and senility.
(Check all the Beamshipcaptain and 'Prof' John Searle stuff - more dreamers, sadly.)
LifesVoyager 3 years ago
sorry soliris Shipov, Kozyrev, Podkletnov.
pentax1812 3 years ago
soliris Oh my God! Laithwaite was foolish you think.
The trouble is you dont.
pentax1812 3 years ago
An anti gravity device can be built using rotating gyroscopes alone. Check out the gravity control website for videos on Eric.
spiritelemental 3 years ago
An anti gravity device can be built using rotating gyroscopes alone. Check out the gravitycontrol website for a good place to find Eric's videos.
spiritelemental 3 years ago
his circle air vortex create a force which is opposite or balance the antigravity force
antonKASA2007 4 years ago
En réponse à un message privé de Flowerb., qui affirme que L. était un malade mental et que l'anti-G n'existe pas: Puérils vos arguments ; Je suis d'accord avec vous, d'ailleurs "les matériaux plus lourds que l'air ne peuvent pas voler", "un bateau en fer ne peut pas flotter", "une fusée dans le vide spatial ne peut avancer", "un bateau face au vent ne peut que reculer", et ma grand-mère malade ne peut que perdre au Loto. 'L'observation de ce qui est entraîne sa propre génération'
soliris 4 years ago
Oh mon Dieu! Laithwaite était idiot, peut-être même congénital ? Quelle chance, tu es venu dans notre vie, Flowerbower.
J'en profite pour parler ici aux personnes plus sérieuses, celles qui commencent à comprendre l'antigravité: celui qui la possède peut défier l'armée chinoise, russe et américaine réunies avec un staff de 15 personnes..
Foi de Cap'taine Nemo
soliris 4 years ago
Par Jupiter! Eric Laithwaite a été chassé de la Royal Society pour avoir trouvé des évènements 'gyroscopiques' indépendants ET supérieurs à la troisième loi de Newton...
Que les 'scientists' officiels tremblent dans leur pantalon: nous étudions ses théories, ainsi que celles de Shipov, Kozyrev, Podkletnov... et nos conclusions sont pour le moins ...ETRANGES.
soliris 4 years ago
Laithwaite etait idiot, et tous ses 'croyants' sont aussi bete que lui. Il n'y a rien d'etrange chez les gyroscopes - seul des fous qui ne comprennent point la science archi-simple!
flowerbower 4 years ago
Well then, can you explain it?
mechaghostman2 2 years ago
There is nothing to explain. He gave his notorious gyroscope lectures to children and laymen, who knew no better. An audience of physicists would have fought each other to be the first to explain to him what an idiot he was. The basic trick of 'hurrying-on the precession' has been known ever since gyroscopes were invented, and can be explained in terms of energy minimization: believe it or not, the system of a spinning gyroscope swung in a circle has a lower total energy in the
flowerbower 2 years ago
[cont] raised position. A spun egg also rises up on end in order to minimise energy.
At all times, the total weight of the gyroscope is supported by Laithwaite's hand and is entirely manageable. The stunt LOOKS amazing because the layman naturally imagines the huge moment that would exist about his hand IF everything were stationary. But there is effectively no such moment while the gyroscope is spinning.
BTW, elementary physics textbooks usually describe gyroscope motion very badly ...
flowerbower 2 years ago
[cont] and say, for instance, that the movement of the gyroscope axis is at 90 degrees to the imposed (gravitational) force. This is untrue, but many 'antigravity' patents have been based upon that misapprehension.
Textbooks also often imply that the gyroscope's axis is the same as the axis of the rotational inertia vector. This is true only in very special situations. Finally, please remember that a respected and genuine professor can still be a crackpot. There are many such cases.
flowerbower 2 years ago
That all makes sence. So was Laithwaite faking it when he couldn't lift the thing very high, or is there another explination as to why he could swing it around his head?
mechaghostman2 2 years ago
Yes, all part of his schtick. He was nothing but a showman (like Tesla), and he is perhaps the worst known case of the nightmare scenario of a crackpot being given official access to impressionable young minds.
He also knew that still shots of his antics would look even more impressive to the layman. Note that it required no extra effort to lift it high above his head: this is known as the Kelvin Effect, aka 'hurrying-on the precession'. It is like a 'self-working' magic trick.
flowerbower 2 years ago
FlowerBower you are a fool. It's 'self-working' as you termed it, because it's true. It's no trick. Go and take a physics lesson.
PurpleBlu3s 1 year ago