Gyroscope's unexplained acceleration may be due to modified inertia

Jul 26, 2011 by Lisa Zyga feature

(PhysOrg.com) -- When a spinning laser gyroscope is placed near a super-cooled rotating ring, the gyroscope accelerates a bit in the same direction as the ring, and scientists aren’t sure why. The anomalous acceleration was discovered in 2007 by Martin Tajmar at the Space Propulsion group at the Austrian Institute of Technology in Seibersdorf, Austria. So far, the effect has only been observed in this one laboratory. Since then, scientists have been looking for an explanation for the so-called Tajmar effect.

In a recent study, Michael McCulloch of the University of Plymouth in the UK has shown that a model that he previously proposed can predict the small unexplained acceleration. His results are published in a recent issue of .

“[Laser gyroscopes] work by sending light around a circle in both directions, and then measuring the interference of the two opposing light waves,” McCulloch told PhysOrg.com. “When the gyro is spun/accelerated, the interference pattern changes detectably.” Commercial laser gyroscopes that operate this way are currently used in aircraft and missiles for orientation and stabilization.

In this study, McCulloch suggests that the ’s observed acceleration stems from a change in its inertial mass and an attempt to conserve momentum with respect to a supercooled rotating ring. Tajmar’s experiments used rings that were cooled to 5K and made of a variety of materials, such as niobium, aluminum, stainless steel, and TEFLON.

McCulloch proposes that the gyroscope’s inertial mass is determined by surrounding Unruh radiation that is modified by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. In the model, the Unruh radiation is generated by the gyroscope’s acceleration relative to every other mass in the universe, such as the fixed stars in the sky and the cold rotating rings. The Hubble-scale Casimir effect is an effect in quantum field theory that, in this case, prohibits the generation of longer Unruh waves, and so indirectly affects the gyroscope’s inertial mass. McCulloch calls this model “modified inertia due to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect” (MiHsC) or simply “quantized inertia.”

When the gyroscope is at room temperature, it is surrounded by short-wavelength Unruh radiation, and its inertial mass is close to its gravitational mass. When its surroundings are cooled, the gyroscope’s inertia becomes more sensitive to the small accelerations of the fixed stars. The wavelengths of the Unruh radiation become longer, and are prohibited by the Hubble-scale Casimir effect, causing the gyroscope’s inertial mass to decrease to less than its gravitational mass. However, when the supercooled ring begins to rotate, the ring’s larger accelerations cause the Unruh waves to shorten so that fewer waves are prohibited, and the gyroscope’s inertial mass increases.

According to the model, in order to conserve momentum, the gyroscope attempts to move with the ring by accelerating in the same direction. For clockwise rotations, the gyroscope should accelerate at a rate of about 2.67 x 10-8 times the acceleration of the ring. For counterclockwise rotations, the gyroscope should accelerate only about half that much.

This model’s predictions closely match Tajmar’s observations, in which the gyroscope’s acceleration was about 3 x 10-8 times that of the ring for clockwise rotations, and half that for counterclockwise ones. MiHsC does not have any adjustable parameters, so it agrees with the observations without being numerically tuned.

McCulloch’s model can also explain why the counterclockwise acceleration is smaller than the clockwise one. As the gyroscope starts to spin with the ring, it changes movement relative to the fixed stars. When in the northern hemisphere (where the experiment was performed), this effect causes a greater acceleration when rotating clockwise. But the model predicts that, when performing the experiment in the southern hemisphere, the gyroscope should accelerate more when rotating counterclockwise than clockwise, while still following the ring’s rotation.

“Inertial mass has not been well understood and has been assumed to be the same as gravitational mass (the Equivalence Principle, EP),” McCulloch explained. “If MiHsC is correct, then the EP is only an approximation (the small deviation from the EP due to MiHsC could not have been detected in torsion balance experiments, as I explain in the Discussion of my paper). As a result there may be implications for General Relativity since this assumes the EP is true (and therefore also implications for low-acceleration phenomena like the orbits of stars at the edge of galaxies). Inertia is important practically since it determines the sensitivity of an object's motion to outside forces.”

As McCulloch explains, the Tajmar effect is closely related to another odd observation: the unexplained acceleration of some spacecraft. For instance, when interplanetary probes fly by the (spinning) Earth, some of them undergo unexplained jumps in velocity. In a previous paper, McCulloch showed that the MiHsC model agrees fairly well with these flyby anomalies if a spacecraft’s acceleration is determined relative to all the particles of matter in the spinning Earth. He also showed that the model could explain the Pioneer anomaly: as the two Pioneer spacecraft flew out of the Solar System, they slowed down more than predicted, which can be attributed to the spacecrafts’ small decrease of inertial mass, which increased their acceleration toward the Sun.

In the current paper, McCulloch suggests a way to test his model’s validity for explaining the Tajmar effect. His model predicts that reducing the mass of the rotating ring by a factor of 10,000 would result in a decrease of the effect with distance. He hopes that Tajmar’s group will try this test with lighter rings using their existing equipment. If McCulloch’s model holds up, it could potentially prove useful.

“Once the cause of something is known, then it may be controllable,” he said. “The control of inertia could be useful. For example: Can we generate Unruh radiation to change the inertial mass of an object and thereby move it? I have discussed this possibility in previous papers (e.g., EPL, 90, 29001).”

Explore further: Thermoelectric power plants could offer economically competitive renewable energy

More information: M. E. McCulloch. “The Tajmar effect from quantised inertia.” EPL, 95 (2011) 39002. DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/95/39002

4.6 /5 (29 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Cooling the burn

Mar 31, 2011

"When we talked to the girls about cyberbullying on Facebook, it was like an explosion. They all knew someone who’d been bullied that way."

GPS not working? A shoe radar may help you find your way

Dec 01, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The prevalence of global positioning system (GPS) devices in everything from cars to cell phones has almost made getting lost a thing of the past. But what do you do when your GPS isn’t working? Researchers ...

A milestone for molecular beams

Oct 29, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- When we think of molecular collisions, we often consider massive colliders, like the LHC, sending particles smashing into each other at very high energies. While this is interesting work, ...

Twisted ring of gas orbits galactic center

Jun 01, 2011

The Herschel Space Observatory scanned the center of the galaxy in far-infrared and found a cool (in all senses of the word) twisting ring of rapidly orbiting gas clouds. The ring is estimated to have dimensions ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LKD
1 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2011
If the Coriolis force is a fictitious force, how does it effect the gyroscope? I was never able to understand this phenomenon well.

Is this a representation of the gravitational spacetime drag of Earth's gravity?
jscroft
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2011
All objects possess two forms of inertia: rotational and translational. Translational inertia can be characterized as a resistance to change in the object's straight line of motion. Rotational inertia is a resistance to a change in an object's AXIS OF ROTATION.

In a classical Universe, translational inertia is solely determined by an object's mass: a Frisbee and a screwdriver with the same mass exhibit the same translational inertia.

An objects ROTATIONAL inertia depends on two things: the quantity of mass it comprises and the DISTRIBUTION of that mass. Because a Frisbee's mass is distributed farther from its axis of rotation than the screwdriver's, the Frisbee will have a higher moment of inertia.

to be continued...
Shootist
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2011
Something akin to this is postulated by Heim theory; in his experiment the super-cooled rotating disk would be superconducting and operating within a 50 tesla magnetic field.

Miracles apparently occur.
jscroft
4 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2011
A bug standing on the Frisbee's edge will have a different (and higher) moment of inertia WITH RESPECT TO THE SPIN AXIS than one standing on the shaft of the screwdriver. If the bug were to walk from its position on the Frisbee's rim to one corresponding to the location of the screwdriver shaft, that bug's moment of inertia with respect to the Frisbee's axis of rotation would necessarily change.

For translations, Force = Mass x Linear Acceleration. For rotations, Torque = Inertia x Radial Acceleration. This change in the bug's moment of inertia can only be accomplished via a radial acceleration of some sort. Newton's Third Law of Motion (the action/reaction one) mandates that this angular acceleration on the part of the bug will be met with an equal but opposite TORQUE.

The bug will experience this torque as a force that tends to push him ACROSS his line of motion. This is the phenomenon we call the "Coriolis force."
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2011
As McCulloch explains, the Tajmar effect is closely related to another odd observation: the unexplained acceleration of some spacecraft. For instance, when interplanetary probes fly by the (spinning) Earth, some of them undergo unexplained jumps in velocity. In a previous paper, McCulloch showed that the MiHsC model agrees fairly well with these flyby anomalies if a spacecrafts acceleration is determined relative to all the particles of matter in the spinning Earth. He also showed that the model could explain the Pioneer anomaly: as the two Pioneer spacecraft flew out of the Solar System, they slowed down more than predicted, which can be attributed to the spacecrafts small decrease of inertial mass, which increased their acceleration toward the Sun.


Wow, maybe this is Heim theory come back from the dead. We can only hope.
LKD
1 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2011
The sub section of this effect, if you were to spin a top that there is less resistance on one side or the other of the top's rotating axis, is where I can't see the force that comes into play.
Gawad
2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2011
What I want to know is why Lisa Zyga gets the most fucked up assignments on PhysOrg. I mean, who did she piss off?

Unruh *radiation* is still only theoretical. And that's not the least of the, uh, shall we say "wild assumptions" involved? Anyone interested can have a look here:

http://iopscience...BA225.c2
Gawad
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2011
Besides, Mach's Principle has never had any appeal to me (it's very controversial at any rate), so McCulloch proposal leaves me rather cold. Not 5 Kelvin cold, but pretty cold. As for Hubble Casimir effects, IMO, the less I say the better.
gwrede
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2011
McCulloch proposes that the gyroscopes inertial mass is determined by surrounding Unruh radiation that is modified by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. In the model, the Unruh radiation is generated by the gyroscopes acceleration relative to every other mass in the universe, such as the fixed stars in the sky and the cold rotating rings. The Hubble-scale Casimir effect is an effect in quantum field theory that, in this case, prohibits the generation of longer Unruh waves, and so indirectly affects the gyroscopes inertial mass. McCulloch calls this model modified inertia due to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect (MiHsC) or simply quantized inertia.

Had I seen this article anywhere else, I would have dismissed it just off-hand as a prank.

Now, after a less than joyful adventure in Wikipedia around this subject, all I can say is, "Oh, boy. I must be gettig too old for this sh*t."
cyberCMDR
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
Interesting. If this effect is based on the system's inertia relative to the "fixed stars", could it be used as a detector for things that perturb the space-time fabric such as gravity waves?
jscroft
4 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2011
The sub section of this effect, if you were to spin a top that there is less resistance on one side or the other of the top's rotating axis, is where I can't see the force that comes into play.


@LKD: Just to be very clear: this phenomenon is NOT related to the Coriolis effect, at least not in any way that will help you pass an exam in mechanical dynamics.

If I were to guess--and, really, that's all I have to offer here--I would hazard that the phenomenon described here has something to do with relativistic frame dragging engendered by the rotating ring. YES, I know the ring isn't moving at relativistic speeds, but then the ring laser can detect phase shifts on the order of an angstrom, so maybe it isn't such a far-fetched idea.
jscroft
2.5 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2011
Interesting. If this effect is based on the system's inertia relative to the "fixed stars", could it be used as a detector for things that perturb the space-time fabric such as gravity waves?


@cyberCMDR: Probably not, unless the scale of your ring laser is of a similar magnitude to the wavelength of your gravity waves.

Think about tossing a rubber duck into the ocean. A big swell will capsize your sailboat because the port side may be on a crest while the boat falls into a trough to starboard, but the duck is so small compared to the swell that the differentials ACROSS the duck are very small indeed.

A millisecond pulsar generates gravity waves with a wavelength of 300 km. You're going to need something rather bigger than a breadbox to detect them with any fidelity.
Moebius
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 26, 2011
So far, the effect has only been observed in this one laboratory. Since then, scientists have been looking for an explanation for the so-called Tajmar effect.


Since when does an effect that is seen in only one lab and not reproduced anywhere become worthy of explanation? Isn't the usual procedure to duplicate the effect first? Can you say Fleishman & Pons?
jscroft
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
Well, it hasn't been DISproved. :)
that_guy
4.6 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2011
so far the effect has only been observed in this one laboratory

Am I a debbie downer when I say that they're gassing the tank before putting in the engine?

I'm not saying that they can't reproduce it, but until they do, all this talk is conjecture. Isn't reproducability a basic tenant of science??!

For all we know, there are thousands of variables at that lab that might be unnacounted for.

Lets do the exact same set up on the opposite side of the earth, and then let's start discussing what is causing it. Until then, my conjecture that it's most likely caused by some error or factor in the actual lab is just as valid as their conjecture that it is a theoretical force in action. Occam and his razor agree.
Callippo
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2011
...Since when does an effect that is seen in only one lab and not reproduced anywhere become worthy of explanation? Isn't the usual procedure to duplicate the effect first?
It's nothing unusual in contemporary physics, where theories like the string theory are becoming "successful" without single experimental confirmation after forty years...;-) It just illustrates the power of theoretical physics lobby. Here we see Tajmar recanting on his original conclusions and pointing to the circulating (cryogenic) helium, (rather than the superconductors), as to the source of the signals.

http://lanl.arxiv...2271.pdf

Then, when his results could not be replicated even by himself (likely because they were noise) Tajmar abandoned the claims of a special connection between spinning superconductors (and thus electrons) and gravity.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271

So I'm somehow surprised by now, when new, even more fantastic theory emerged to explain it.
that_guy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
So far, the effect has only been observed in this one laboratory. Since then, scientists have been looking for an explanation for the so-called Tajmar effect.


Since when does an effect that is seen in only one lab and not reproduced anywhere become worthy of explanation? Isn't the usual procedure to duplicate the effect first? Can you say Fleishman & Pons?


Sorry Moebius, I didn't notice that you had already made my point first :)

@callippo - I think you're being unfair to modern physics. The only reason string theory has any traction is that it does work in an elegant way with existing data, and it points out some intriguing possibilities. That said, string theory is not used as a final explanation for anything, because it is not proven.

There still has to be plenty of evidence for something to be accepted - especially phenomena on the ground. (Cosmology/astrophysics notwithstanding due to limitations of their ability to study far away things)
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2011
The only reason string theory has any traction is that it does work in an elegant way with existing data

What the elegance means? The complex ad-hoced math, which nobody actually understand? The lack of fixed clean postulate list? The existence of pile of mutually inconsistent string theory clones? The fuzzy landscape of 10^500 "solutions"? The "elegance" is just PR connection implanted into your brain by trustworthy looking face of Brian Greene, face it.
string theory is not used as a final explanation for anything, because it is not proven
If it doesn't predict the mass of single particle, it couldn't be used as an explanation of anything even if it would be proven somehow. And because it behaves as a random numbers generator, it can be proven neither.
Wolf358
1 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2011
Gyroscopes, laser or otherwise, are spooky:
http://depalma.pa...rop.html
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2011
komone
5 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2011
Isn't this article pointing to something very interesting?; If I understand the issues, then inertia remains a fundamental and unexplained mystery. Perhaps the most interesting mystery in relativistic physics.
Graeme
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
This could easily be down to distortions in the supporting structures for the experiment. After all spinning up that ring needs to conserve angular moentum and will apply a torque. This will deform the supports for the motor, and presumably this is connected in the same room to the gyroscope. 1 part in 33 million is not a lot of movement, so things will have to be very rigid to stop this.

Real forces that could actually occur here could be due black body radiation from the gyroscope. When this impacts in a near field on the highly conductive spinning ring there will be a bit of back force, and could easily be enough to explain a counter acceleration.
Deesky
4.9 / 5 (11) Jul 26, 2011
If only they didn't throw in the Pioneer anomaly...
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2011
What I want to know is why Lisa Zyga gets the most fucked up assignments on PhysOrg. I mean, who did she piss off? - Gawad

lol
In mathematics this "\" is called a backslash.
Physics has no such symbol. Backstabbing has no symbol.
Just blood as a sign.

Did EP lose or gain significance here?
Callippo
2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2011
then inertia remains a fundamental and unexplained mystery?
Why not, but some other independent experiments would be good in this moment. For example, I've my own independent explanation for this behavior, which involves interaction of superconductive electrons with vacuum, but Tajmar claims, his gravitomagnetic effects work even with cooled teflon ring. It simply gives no meaning for me.
Jim1138
5 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2011
physorg attempting to scoop Journal of Irreproducable Results?
dirk_bruere
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2011
Nobody mention Podklenov, Ning Li or Modanese...
Husky
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
i love how experiments always "confirm" the predicted numers in the models, more likely that meausurements of the experiment come first and then the brew a formula around it that comes to that number
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2011
What I want to know is why Lisa Zyga gets the most fucked up assignments on PhysOrg. I mean, who did she piss off?

AFAIK nobody gets assignments. You can submit an article and maybe you get 10 bucks when published.

Apart from that the string "Martin Tajmar" always causes my seriosity radar to squawk.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
Nobody mention Podklenov, Ning Li or Modanese
During time, M. Tajmar few-times changed the idea of these theories. At present, it appears this is not a result of superconductors and Cooper couples, but about a phenomenon of gravitomagnetism enhanced with low temperatures. It would indicate, their mechanism is really different from this one of Podkletnov. After all, Tajmar has made that clear in the interview which he gave at the STAIF. From this reason, the newly experiments were made with aluminium or liquid helium, which aren't superconductors at these temperatures.

But we should admit, Tajmar's results remain unpublished in any reputable physics journals. It has been nearly two years since the _original press release_ and the results Tajmar submitted to Phys.Rev.C have still not been accepted. Whereas I'm rather sure, Podkletnov is the victim of the same ignorance, like the cold fusion and/or room temperature findings, I'm still not completely convinced about Tajmar.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
My private explanation of this phenomena is based on the anomalous behaviour of electrons within superconductors. These electrons are highly compressed there, so that their repulsive forces overlap and compensate mutually. As the result, the portion of electrons is moving chaotically with high speed along hole stripes.

Another point comes from recent idea, the charged particles are dragged/are dragging vacuum a much more, than the uncharged ones even at the relatively low speeds. At the case of superconductors both these effects could yield into strong drag of vacuum fluctuations with electrons within accelerated superconductors. If this explanation is correct, it could manifest even for so-called pseudogap state, which actually don't require for superconductors to remain superconductive through bulk.

But Mr. Tajmar's explanation appears to be of different category. It seems, it does work even for completely neutral particles, like the liquid helium.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
The interesting point is, it's relatively easy to cook the superconductors, which exhibit transition above the room temperature.

http://www.superc.../20C.htm

So far, the (super)conductivity of these materials is miserable, because the hole stripes inside of these materials are separated with many insulation oxide layers (which actually keeps their room temperature superconductivity). But the Tajmar/Podkletnov effects are bulk ones, so it shouldn't be a problem in their gravitomagnetic applications.

The problem is, the mainstream physics is the less interested about research of important phenomena, the more the explanation of these phenomena remains separated from mainstream theories. If I say, my theory violates Lorentz symmetry and/or equivalence principle, I can be completely sure, at least 90% of theorists will stop to communicate with me immediately. This is why, the research of these phenomena continues slowly as one man show, despite of their potential applications.
Gawad
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
AFAIK nobody gets assignments. You can submit an article and maybe you get 10 bucks when published.

Apart from that the string "Martin Tajmar" always causes my seriosity radar to squawk.

Eeesh. She'd have written that up for 10 bucks? That's even more depressing.

Anyway, agreed. Gotta love it: Unruh radiation, Hubble Casimir effects, inertia based on Mach's principle and the Pioneer anomaly (thanks for pointing that one out Deesky)...all rolled into one. My BS meter has spiked.
LKD
3 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2011
Thanks jscroft for the replies. That helped. But I am also noticing from the comments that maybe this is environmental errors and not a real repeatable effect.
jscroft
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2011
Thanks jscroft for the replies. That helped. But I am also noticing from the comments that maybe this is environmental errors and not a real repeatable effect.


Haha probably. But then that same phenomenon accounts for 99.99999% of ALL anomalous observations, so don't feel too bad. As an old man once said, "Of COURSE the game is rigged! But don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win!"
FrankZnidarsic
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
My papers on gravity modification.

academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/7519801.aspx

A peer reviewed paper is coming out in Elsevier.

Frank Znidarsic
LKD
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2011
As an old man once said, "Of COURSE the game is rigged! But don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win!"


You and YYZ do a nice job on this site. They should pay you both.
jscroft
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2011
You and YYZ do a nice job on this site. They should pay you both.


Now that's just an awfully damned nice thing of you to say... I think. I'd better check out this YYZ character. :)
LKD
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2011
I'd better check out this YYZ character. :)


http://www.physor...et-.html

Without asking, I'm guessing he's either a retired professor, or a very gifted amateur.
jscroft
3 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2011
Nice. Well, I agree... they SHOULD pay us! :)
that_guy
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
regarding yyz - I'm kind of split. he doesn't usually go into a lot of technical detail, just simple explanations (granted, being able to explain something simply is an indication that you understand it) and links to articles or papers. He only comments when he is right about something. He seems very knowledgeable, but I can't really pin anything on him that a good amateur enthusiast couldn't do.

On the other hand, he has a near perfect track record...but that can be unusual for a professional as well...

Just feeding the fire.
LKD
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2011
Hehe. Better a positive discussion than say... Oliver. XD (Hands you gasoline can) Either way, good or bad, he has a good reputation and I hope he continues to post.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2011
Sounds like Yuri Podkletnov and Ning Li stand vindicated before the world.....yet again. Wait till the Chinese flying saucers show up in space!
that_guy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2011
Hehe. Better a positive discussion than say... Oliver. XD (Hands you gasoline can) Either way, good or bad, he has a good reputation and I hope he continues to post.


I don't think Oliver generally begins or feeds the negative discussions that often (although he's not innocent in more ways than one) I think Oliver's presence causes the members to become negative by his dogma on his crackpot theories.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2011
He seems very knowledgeable, but I can't really pin anything on him that a good amateur enthusiast couldn't do.
On the other hand, he has a near perfect track record...but that can be unusual for a professional as well...
Just feeding the fire.

You have to observe the ratings a user is giving to others in order to learn more about him.

I think Oliver's presence causes the members to become negative by his dogma on his crackpot theories.

His presence functions like litmus paper - it helps to tell people's mindsets apart.
LKD
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2011
You have to observe the ratings a user is giving to others in order to learn more about him.


Oh wow, you CAN see who rated what. Now my guilted 5 ratings for Oliver have to stop.
jscroft
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2011
Oh wow, you CAN see who rated what.


No kidding? How do you do that?
LKD
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2011
The activity page of the user. Though it doesn't say WHAT they rated you. But I bet there is a way to figure that out too. I sarcastically love living in a world of too much information and not a drop on anonymity.
stealthc
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2011
if you were to look at the arrangement, and it were going clockwise, then you looked on the other side, wouldn't it be going counter-clockwise? Perhaps the difference between the two are based on one's perspective relative to the biggest influence on this experiment, the gravity of earth.
stealthc
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2011
by the way, these rating systems are easily defeated by the trolls who are smart enough to gain multiple accounts, so, they are fairly useless. A dozen accounts and if the current system were useful, it would be useless. I don't care what you rating is, it doesn't mean squat to me and I'm sure there's other people who liken it to a caveman penis measuring game... my "rating" is bigger than yours!
jscroft
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2011
I dunno. I just think it'd be interesting to know which participants in a given conversation thought enough about a comment to offer a rating. But then I guess that would defeat the purpose.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.