10 thoughts on “Flat Earth and the Gyroscope Myth”

  1. RickPotvin54 1 second ago
    +Rob Durham Good attempt Rob. I would consider the powered test as primary however, because a solid proof one way or another should have an easily publicly understood demonstration that doesn’t require a tiny percentage of movement– but rather a large demonstrable move over time… or lack thereof.

    So we need to see a powered 3 axis gyro on a continuous uninterrupted non-narrated 6 hour recording at your specified latitude on-screen.

    I liked your explanation of drift. The powered 3 axis 6 hour experiment should not drift so we can ignore that.

    We don’t need any history lessons or context. We need a bona fide and clean, silent movie.

    If we go further, we should include a scale model demonstration of how the powered unit moves on a 1-axis mounted earth globe– the bigger the better. A demo of what it looks like as it changes position relative to a turning earth-model-globe at the equator and at your latitude would be in order.

    Going these extra steps can go a long way to proving whether Earth is flat or spherical. Myself– I would consider it solid proof one way or another.

    By going the extra steps I just described, and by explaining drift the way you did, we can settle the issue. It’s going to be one small spin for a few men, a giant spin for mankind.

    Rick Potvin

    1. We don’t need any history lessons or context. We need a bona fide and clean, silent movie.

      Agreed, we need an experiment that isn’t fraudulent. Since this is a site about exposing media fakery, I’ll explain how Rob faked this one.

      For openers, it seems rather unlikely that a precision gyroscope company would ship an unbalanced instrument leaving the customer to jury rig a counterweight out of bubble gum, playdough or whatnot. That’s your first red flag for fakery right there.

      Suspicions are confirmed when Rob demonstrates twice before the 6-minute experiment (which starts at 6:42) that his precision gyroscope is in fact already balanced without the playdough.

      The first of these two demonstrations occurs mere seconds after Rob gets done fibbing about his gyro being unbalanced. When he takes his hands off it at 5:31, the gyro does not rotate. It stays put in the same orientation as during the 6-minute experiment, so it’s clearly already balanced without the playdough.

      Then, on the acrylic turntable at 5:50, Rob again shows the gyro to be balanced as-is. Whenever he stops shifting the turntable, the gyro stops precessing (which means it is balanced), but the playdough counterweight is absent here too.

      Since the gyroscope was balanced without the playdough, adding the playdough for the 6-minute experiment unbalanced the gyroscope. This imbalance caused a slight counterclockwise precession (for the same reason pushing on a gyroscope with a finger can cause the same effect), which canceled the expected clockwise drift due to Earth’s rotation.

      That’s how the magic trick was done. I haven’t looked closely at Rob’s other demonstrations yet – no doubt they’re as phony the first.

  2. To make sense of this experiment, we need to know the axis of rotation of the gyroscope relative to the axis of rotation of the Earth (i.e. the North-South direction). Without this information, the results are meaningless.

    When these two axes are aligned – as was probably the case in this video – we would not expect the gyro to show any “apparent topple”. Under these conditions, a gyro will maintain its orientation by simply continuing to point North-South as the Earth rotates.

    For best results, point the axis of the gyroscope 90 degrees from the axis of the Earth – that is, point it in the East-West direction.

    Should we expect a follow-up video with a correction, or will junk science be Rob Durham’s final word on the matter?

    By the way, the name of the scientist whose work this video mangled is pronounced “foo-koh”.

    1. To add to and clarify my previous comment, here are some standard rules of thumb about the drift and topple of a gyroscope with Earth’s rotation.

      Horizontal axis: at equator (N/S axis) shows no apparent drift or topple

      Horizontal axis: at equator (E/W axis) shows maximum topple and becomes a vertical axis after 6 hours

      Horizontal axis: at poles shows maximum drift

      Horizontal axis: drift varies with sine of latitude, topple varies with cosine of latitude.

      Vertical axis: at equator shows maximum topple

      Vertical axis: at poles shows no drift or topple

      For valid results, it is necessary to conduct – and record – an experiment according to the above. This includes allowing enough time for the effects you are looking for to show up.

      1. Did you agree with Rob that a 3 axis gyro won’t drift?

        Did you agree with him for the reasons for drift on a 2 axis?

        Have you ever seen or been aware of the existence of a powered 3 axis gyro?

        When you refer to “enough time for the effects to show up”, wouldn’t you agree that a good case can be made one way or another over 24 hours, given that is the time for 1 complete rotation of the said-sphere?

        I agree you need to know the axes of rotations of the gyro and earth to begin with. Isn’t that calculable if you assume an initial position, always, of a zero degree (flat with the surface of the earth) position?

        Doesn’t it seem to you that this method, carried out satisfactorily according to your specs, would be the single best way to prove flat vs. sphere?

        Do you agree that Foucault pendulums worldwide, in major museums and costing millions of dollars, are fraudulent in regards to their method of proving earth’s rotation?

        Why do you believe we can’t get to the bottom of this seemingly innocent problem and demo?

        What is your background briefly?

        Do you agree with me that there is a good chance that the powers that be are preventing the creation of a 3 axis powered gyro in order to cover up the flat earth, easily proven with such a device?

        Would you agree with me that Rob is likely a shill for spherists given that he seems to be dodging the testing at a critical point and walking away?

        1. A 2 or 3-axis gyro is unnecessary. The standard 1-axis is plenty good for this job. In fact, a flywheel, or simply a wheel, will do fine. It would also be easier to power a standard, say, cart wheel with a standard electric motor. Just make sure the wheel has enough angular momentum and a low-friction bearing to allow easy pivot. Also make sure that all forces on the wheel are honestly accounted for – e.g. no bubble gum cheats. Under proper conditions, 6 hours, during which the Earth rotates 90 degrees, should be more than sufficient – and the experiment supposedly done in this video would be alright also.

          So this isn’t about exotic equipment. It’s about the experiment being done with competence and honesty – a job for which Rob Durham has disqualified himself by the previously described playdough fakery in his Flat Earth video.

          I disagree about Foucault pendulums being problematic. It makes sense that a rotating Earth would turn under a swinging pendulum. So far no one has given a sound explanation to the contrary. Nor have I heard of any real problems with how the museums are implementing this pendulum, junk science objections from the Flat Earth fakers notwithstanding.

          1. Cluesseau– It seems to me that a 3-axis would eliminate any question of drift forced on the device by having too few axes to move on. The crazy drift problem is actually used to explain topple by other spherists in forums. So the point of 3 axes is to eliminate that argument. Your 1-axis flywheel movement will be discredited with the drift argument if it moves at all. If it doesn’t move, it can be discredited for not being correctly positioned in a N/S/E/W position. A “clean & easily understood sellable test” must use 3 axes in my view since it eliminates complications.

            To suggest that a powered 3 axis gyro is “exotic” strikes me as the type of thing that a spherist shill might say to ward me off of the key element in a flat earth proof. Not that you’re that. But it’s what that type of person WOULD say in a forum like this. It would be the same type of person who would be sure that there are no 3 axis powered gyros to be found anywhere on the internet.

            Foucault pendulums are extremely and notoriously problematic in the online discussions among flat earthers… quite the contrary to your statement. Again, your position is consistent with a spherist shill in this forum here. Not surprising to me now that you’ve said that a powered 3 axis gyro is exotic and that a 1-axis flywheel is sufficient for a convincing proof.

            The explanation for the rotating Foucault pendulum is that a motor is placed at the top that makes it do that. As silly and obscene as that sounds, that is one explanation. So it’s not true that “no one has given a sound explanation” as you stated. Those pendulums are expensive and under the control of well funded museums. It’s perfectly possible that they are all hoaxes that move in circles due to a motorized system.

            To use an expletive like “Junk science” to characterize objections from flat earthers is astonishingly crude and bad-mouthed on your part. Instead of sticking with an objective and polite analysis, you’ve given youreself away using language like that…. totally unneccessary.

            Another explanation for the Foucault effect on the pendulum that I’ve seen in a video has to do with coriolis effect. The pendulum swings in circles for the same reason that water going down a drain swirls. I don’t fully understand that effect yet but the argument there is that the coriolis effect is certainly NOT due to the rotation of the Earth as a sphere and that therefore the rotation of the Foucault pendulum, affected by the same Coriolis effect, is NOT due to the rotation of the earth. This requires further understanding of the Coriolis effect.

            Again, the most convincing approach to the problem will be to get away from the pendulum altogether and to zero in on the convincing stability of the gyroscope, set up to shift along 3 axes as it wants to– and to watch it NOT do that over a 6 or 24 hour period when it SHOULD, according spherist theory.

          2. Cluesseau wrote

            A 2 or 3-axis gyro is unnecessary. The standard 1-axis is plenty good for this job

            Rick responds– Absolutely untrue, and furthermore, completely idiotic. As I read Cluesseau again, it seems to me that it is truly amazing how erudite someone can sound while they make points that are wholly and completely false to the degree that it’s knocks me off my chair. This sentence by Cluesseau is so false that I just had to make one more attack on Cluesseau. His remark is made more horrible by the way he expresses it in a lofty knowing tone as if its authoritative and considered. His is a mark of evil in my opinion. It’s astonishing how evil it is, appearing, as it is, to be well-considered and thoughtful. WoW!

  3. Rick Potvin’s Superior Photographic Evidence that a Free 3 Axis Powered Gyroscope Will Demonstrate A Spherical Earth Either at the Equator or at 30N Latitude Sufficiently Well, by a Change in the Angle of the Gyroscope Wheel from Horozontal to Either 90 Deg. or about 45 Degrees in 6 hours.

    I predict that such a gyroscope flywheel will NOT change angle in 6 hours as demonstrated in the photos on the blog page linked just above. That will prove that the earth is not spinning. It will be evidence in favor of the earth NOT being a sphere but rather being flat.

    Nowhere on the internet can I find a powered 3 axis gyroscope that will run for 6 hours. I can find a variety of 2 axis gyroscopes and even powered gyroscopes but none that are powered, can run 6 hours, and that are mounted on 3 axes. I propose that this absence of such a device is intended so as to make it really hard to prove easily that the earth is flat.

    Anyone who disagrees with the validity of my test above is, in my opinion, either unable to understand that problem and the way solutions have to be “sold”… or is a shill for the spherists. My pictures above demonstrate a sellable and easy way to demonstrate Earth is spherical and rotates– if that is what is going on. Without the real-life correspondence to my model, its highly likely that we don’t have a sphere that rotates– and that would be consistent with a flat pancake of a planet.

    Pass the syrup please.

  4. If gyroscopes don’t show a rotating earth, explain why a gyrotheodolite, which relies on the earth’s rotation to work, enabled the builders of, eg, the Channel Tunnel to align their digging from England and France so perfectly.

    “It’s perfectly possible that [Foucault’s pendulums] are all hoaxes that move in circles due to a motorized system. ”

    Occam’s razor is your friend here. Foucault’s pendulums (a) are a massive hoax that would have to involve hundreds of people, at least, in on the secret, to make and instal and operate them, not one of which people has ever decided to cash in on the huge sums of money that would be available to anyone revealing the hoax or (b) work exactly as advertised. The simple explanation, or the complex one depending on a mass of unlikely collusions and secret-keepings?

Leave a Reply