User talk:Jnhrtmn

Gyroscopic mechanism
Regarding the square gyroscope, I need to know if you could see my point or not. I understand that a contradiction is not popular, but it is a fact that the explanation of "why" a gyroscope does what it does was derived from a mathematical technique that was borrowed for the purpose of describing this effect. Angular Momentum WAS NOT discovered and then described mathematically. It's wrong in a perfectly orthogonal way, so it works, but not from causality.

This says so much about physics and its ability to let math dictate the reality. No one wants to hear that! Then I'm not sure how this message works, so I hope you get this. -Jnhrtmn (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I see your point that the current article does not explain why a gyroscope acts as it does. Instead the article outlines the math that correctly calculates how it acts. If your point is that the math is incorrect, then I believe you are mistaken. I believe it is used to calculate too many things accurately to be mistaken. The point that I think you are not seeing is that Wikipedia does not allow original research. If you want to insert details about why a gyroscope acts as it does without the math, that would be great, but you need to find a reliable source to use as a reference. This one comes pretty close. If you can find the book mentioned at the end of the first response, that would be a good start. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I expected the original research objection, but I was hoping to catch a fish. My point was that math IS correct, but not from a causal sense. It correctly 'describes' using incidental variables that have nothing to do with the actual cause.  Then, physics takes an ontological stance from what the math says - "the math says angular momentum, so angular momentum is what it is."  When I get this thing widely accepted, it will mean a great adjustment to physics.  This is basic mechanics ruined by believing that mathematics can dictate a reality.  The simplest example is, you can't take 3 apples from 2, but math says that you can.  If that ends up being the square root of negative one, it's a tachyon.  I don't like a universe that has laws and rules.  I would rather understand than operate from mnemonic devices. Thank you for your time. -Jnhrtmn (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2011


 * Sure, I get that the math doesn't say how a gyroscope does what it does, it just accurately calculates what it does. I have, however, over the years stumbled across descriptions of how a gyroscope does what it does and so have some idea of what to look for Here's a better example than the one I mention above, but I have no idea who Cef (Terry) Pearson is or how reliable a source he might be, unfortunately. I think an accurate description of how a gyroscope does what it does, with appropriate references, would make a great addition to the article, and I hope you don't just let this slide. As for changing how mechanics or physics is taught, well that's a pretty big windmill at which to tilt. At least what is being taught is merely incomplete, not inaccurate. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A similar issue that I have tried to address is misconceptions about Newton's Third Law, and I was able to find a 1992 paper by Hellingman in Physics Education that addresses the subject. The clarification and that reference now are part of the Newton's laws of motion article. So, either you can find a similar paper about gyroscopes, or get one published in a similar journal. Hellingman's paper is quite interesting and might act as a framework for yours. If you can't find a copy, let me know. This looks like another one, and so does this one. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go all the way back to the beginning and start from there. It's only around late 1800's to early 1900's. Amazing right? 100 years. I did reference a paper in this attempt at precession: Paul Rood, “’Action Equals Reaction’—Even in Gyroscopes,” Am. J. Phys. 13, 175-177 (1945). He describes shooting lead shot through a tube that is tilting. He doesn't finish it like I do by saying that the gryoscopic effect is actually two instances of a single mechanism that oppose each other, but as far as the mechanism responsible for creating the effect, he says exactly what I claimed. I want to go back and see where it all steered wrong. I don't know of a reference to Paul Roods article, but I'll look. There is a book called "Theory of the Top" by Klein and Sommerfeld around 1910 or so. In it they actually address the concern that mathematics is one thing but the mechanism is another and that they very much want to treat both! I haven't read it all yet. Jnhrtmn (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Gyroscope are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Gyroscope for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)