No, I think this is quite interesting   (oh, wait, I posted this topic)

Well, isn't that "precious?"  I wondered if I was losing something "in translation." Yeah, I know you posted it... sorry

I still wonder what it is I'm actually able to bring to the table... let me ask you this cameron--do you see any "metaphysical"
implications (word choice?) to gyroscopic particle action?  Metaphysical in relation to the idea of "transitioning" one density realm to another?  When you read what I wrote here--

--what was your "gut reaction?"  I'm just curious as to where your "head's at."  I guess I'm pretty much thinking they're not all about propulsing and stablizing satellites, much less the toy that is a Spinning Top.

Tell me, what do you think?

--V

Seriously, am I the only one really interested in these gyroscopes, and now gyroscopes and superconductivity?   Is it only I that has something to learn here?

No, I think this is quite interesting   (oh, wait, I posted this topic)

Uh-oh!  Did I just fall off the gyroscopic turnip truck?  Am I the gyroscopic 100th monkey?

Seriously, am I the only one really interested in these gyroscopes, and now gyroscopes and superconductivity?  Is it only I that has something to learn here?

I've got to tell ya'll, I intuitively get a "big hit" regarding this info.  When I read cameron's first post my crown energy center "blossomed," filled and got very hot, this for me an unfailing indication that I'm best served to investigate what I'm reading.  So yesterday I took to searching and studying, I plan to do more today... this is interesting stuff... I think.

There's more I'd like to explore of this if one or more are interested,
I started commenting here today unprepared, there are a few things I read yesterday I'd like to bring to the table, and some things I'm going to explore today that could maybe be disscussed (I need to revisit Bucky's "Jitterbug Motion") if anyone is interested?  I have to warn you though, I have far more questions than I have even a  conclusion one.  I'm going by the seat of my pants here, as I'm no braniac, and I do feel like I'm putting together a puzzle, and some of the puzzle pieces are hidden. 

Also, and another one of those "I can't believe I'm going to write this outloud" things again --from that intuitive front I often speak/think from I have an extremely strong impression, to the point of words "manifesting" with resolute understanding, that there is a

"4D exchange of information and energy regarding this information. Exchange as in reciprocal." 

And ya know what?  It's not a negative thing, it involves STO energies, and if I'm correct in my interpretation, substantive consciousness transitioning energies... although I am quickly reminded that everthing is corruptable in 3D Land... bah-dump-bump!  There's another one for ya SednaSphere!

If nobody responds here I'll just go play with my gryoscopic particles all by myself.

--V

My oh my, but I did get Smiley Face happy with this one, didn't I?

Oh my - the 'purest of pure'.  Now, that's pure.
Stats:
- 1.5 inches of fused quartz
- < 40 atomic layers from perfect
- within 2 parts per million (quartz purity)
- 10,000 rpm spin rate
- < 1E-12 degrees/hour drift rate

The stanford site will explain much better than my Reuters article anyway.  So, future viewers: go to Stanford for the facts.

update - Okay, the reuters link is fixed.  (darn nested url tags inside quote= tag)

Yeah, I didn't see the variance in shade, but my eyes are getting old...ish too, BAH!  Even so, when I did click the link it took me to a "page can't be displayed" page and referred me to montalk.net. 

I had just come back on to post this web site I found in search, though I'm not sure if it's the same thing you were looking at--

http://einstein.stanford.edu/index.html

--V

That would depend upon how much it costs to produce them, and just how proliferate they're intended to be in the world market... and it's that "intention" part that makes us wonder about alternative applications.  Unfortunately, cutting edge technology always comes with a price. or "costs."

I've said before that I'm no Rocket Scientist, neither am I an Engineer type. I've only a basic understanding of quantum physics, so I may be asking this question from a simplistic, maybe even faulty understanding in the first place, but--

Are they saying that four spheres the size of ping pong balls are the most accurate "stablizers" to be had for a 3.5 ton satellite?

--V

BTW--cameron, can you post the article, or the web address to the article?  No doubt it's technical, but I could try to read it.

Noone really seems to be studying these fascinating objects (in much detail, and with experiments).  If they do, it's mostly a cursory theoretical explanation and/or a simple low velocity experiment.

This latest Nasa experiment to test the validity of Einstein's General Relativity has an interesting element to it.

Now, suppose it took some incredible engineering to create these gyroscope spheres.  Wouldn't one suppose that the process was quite expensive and probably quite involved?  Then, do you think they would only create four of these super precise spheres?  If they created more, than  what would they do with them?

I have serious doubts as to the true nature of this experiment.  I also wonder what the alternative uses for these super precise gyroscopes can/are being used for.