if the world spins at 1000mph...and i leave my FC plug into beta flight set up for an hr...shouldnt the gyro scope degs. move because it has to stay in set position relative to space and not earth?

just a thought...what do you think?

actually the earth is rotating very slowly so slow ithe gyro on our F.C. is not precise and accurate enough to detect earth movement

Imagine if you only rotate your F.C. 360 degree every 24 hours LOL

It has a very fast velocity because how far the surface is from the centre. But because gyro measures angular velocity, not linear velocity it doesn’t matter

(22-Jan-2018, 11:42 AM)Oscar Wrote: actually the earth is rotating very slowly so slow ithe gyro on our F.C. is not precise and accurate enough to detect earth movement

Imagine if you only rotate your F.C. 360 degree every 24 hours LOL

It has a very fast velocity because how far the surface is from the centre. But because gyro measures angular velocity, not linear velocity it doesn’t matter

if its left for 24 hrs youd think there would be a bit of movement?..but NO change in degs...IDK...are we spinning at all?

The gyro doesn't measure degrees, it measures movement. The accelerometer on the other hand does measure degrees, but it does so relative to the Earth's gravity, so regardless of the fact that the planet is spinning, the accelerometer isn't moving relative to the Earth's gravity, so it won't show the planet's rotation either.

(26-Jan-2018, 09:30 AM)unseen Wrote: The gyro doesn't measure degrees, it measures movement. The accelerometer on the other hand does measure degrees, but it does so relative to the Earth's gravity, so regardless of the fact that the planet is spinning, the accelerometer isn't moving relative to the Earth's gravity, so it won't show the planet's rotation either

so these gyros dont work like a "top" which stays relative to its own setting at the time of which it was spun .. when the world spins then the top should stay the same...in theory, the top works off its own forces of gravity, and i thought that fc gyros were the digital form of a manual gyro?...

Just believe the original 'flat earther' Terry Pratchett - the world is balanced on the back of 4 elephants that stand on the back of a star turtle named Great A'Tuin!

(31-Jan-2018, 01:34 AM)nitro20% Wrote: so these gyros dont work like a "top" which stays relative to its own setting at the time of which it was spun .. when the world spins then the top should stay the same...in theory, the top works off its own forces of gravity, and i thought that fc gyros were the digital form of a manual gyro?...

That is correct (that they don't work like...).
There are no spinning parts in a digital "gyro". It is actually an IMU, with gyro information being calulated from inertia movements of very tiny parts.

(31-Jan-2018, 01:34 AM)nitro20% Wrote: so these gyros dont work like a "top" which stays relative to its own setting at the time of which it was spun .. when the world spins then the top should stay the same...in theory, the top works off its own forces of gravity, and i thought that fc gyros were the digital form of a manual gyro?...

The gyro part of the IMU uses a vibrating mass. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_..._gyroscope

Either type of gyroscope measures the Coriolis force generated when you attempt to move a vibrating or rotating mass. Gravity is not needed for this, only mass.

(31-Jan-2018, 06:45 AM)Tom BD Bad Wrote: Just believe the original 'flat earther' Terry Pratchett - the world is balanced on the back of 4 elephants that stand on the back of a star turtle named Great A'Tuin!

FUNNY...you picked up on that...i still believe the earth is round..BUT..there are some things that i dont have enough knowledge to know the difference between this or that.....like in Siberia, there is a frozen lake over 360 miles long..called the FLATTEST place on earth, but with calculations of the earths curve, there should be 20 miles of drop...just makes me wonder WHY?

(24-Feb-2018, 05:19 PM)nitro20% Wrote: FUNNY...you picked up on that...i still believe the earth is round..BUT..there are some things that i dont have enough knowledge to know the difference between this or that.....like in Siberia, there is a frozen lake over 360 miles long..called the FLATTEST place on earth, but with calculations of the earths curve, there should be 20 miles of drop...just makes me wonder WHY?

The weight of all the reindeer running back and forth on the surface flattened it out is all.  Maybe there is a pocket of heavier gravity there as well that pulled the surface flatter yet!    Like, science and stuff!

I actually find this topic fascinating! Started to research it all. My logic seems to imply that nitro's thought on it would hold true. It makes sense I guess that our instrumentation is not refined enough to accurately read the movement, but given enough time...it seems like there should be something detected.

(24-Feb-2018, 05:19 PM)nitro20% Wrote: FUNNY...you picked up on that...i still believe the earth is round..BUT..there are some things that i dont have enough knowledge to know the difference between this or that.....like in Siberia, there is a frozen lake over 360 miles long..called the FLATTEST place on earth, but with calculations of the earths curve, there should be 20 miles of drop...just makes me wonder WHY?

You're thinking "flat" in terms of Euclidean geometry.  The surface of a sphere is non-Euclidean (there are no "parallel lines" - by the euclidean definition - on the surface of a sphere).  "Triangles" drawn on the surface of a sphere have angle that total to more than 180 degrees.  And so on.  When we talk about the "shortest distance" between New York City and London (for example), we are actually thinking about a "line" in non-Euclidean space.  A Euclidean "shortest line" would pass through the earth.

So when they say "Flattest", they probably mean in the non-Euclidean sense.

EDIT: This is also why maps of the earth look so strange. It is mathematically impossible to project the surface of a sphere onto a Euclidean plane.

(24-Feb-2018, 07:44 PM)sloscotty Wrote: You're thinking "flat" in terms of Euclidean geometry.  The surface of a sphere is non-Euclidean (there are no "parallel lines" - by the euclidean definition - on the surface of a sphere).  "Triangles" drawn on the surface of a sphere have angle that total to more than 180 degrees.  And so on.  When we talk about the "shortest distance" between New York City and London (for example), we are actually thinking about a "line" in non-Euclidean space.  A Euclidean "shortest line" would pass through the earth.

So when they say "Flattest", they probably mean in the non-Euclidean sense.

EDIT:  This is also why maps of the earth look so strange.  It is mathematically impossible to project the surface of a sphere onto a Euclidean plane

nope...im thinkin when people go out and measure 100s of miles at 3 points and ALL 3 points are level from earth to a set point on the markers..for every mile there should be 8 inches of drop for curvature..there is no way in any hell that i could see a boat in the ocean with a telescope or binoculars from shore 6ft high at 9 miles out .. https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-cal...t=imperial

thats what gets me!?!?!?

Well, here's something else to ponder: If you are on a train going 80 mph and drop a ball from 6 ft to the trains floor, the ball will appear (to you) to drop straight down. However, the ball will have also traveled about 100 ft horizontally before striking the floor...

Edit: Hmm....that makes me wonder what would happen to a tiny whoop on a train (if the gyros calibrated before the train started moving....)