If you are referring to the thread linked below, I assume it was closed because of the immediately combative tone and insistence that you would ignore anyone you disagreed with:
I had considered attempting a response but I’m not interested in ‘tutoring someone’ via Zoom nor being told how I can and cannot attempt to explain the phenomenon. I will say that trying to explain precession in the fashion you demanded (“Your answer has to be that ‘this pushes here, and this forces that’”) is gong to be unsatisfying at best, and likely deeply misleading because the phenomenon involves an understanding of vector calculus and differential equations as well as the concept of rotating frames of reference and moments of inertia, which can only be really understood with math.
Just as you wouldn’t write a sonnet with trigonometric formulas (at least, not a very good one), you can’t really explain anything beyond trivial physical mechanics in natural language. The things you refer to as “mathematical cheats” are the formulas and techniques to provide a way to illustrate the principles without mathematics beyond algebra and simple trigonometry; if you eschew these for a more fundamental understanding then you have to get into the math because that is the language of physics.
What you can say to a high school level audience is that gyroscopic precession is the result of conservation of angular momentum of a rotating system that is acted upon by an external torque (in the case of a top, that is gravity acting at the center of mass and the reaction force at the tip) and that instead of just falling over like a non-rotating object it falls around in a circle. That is the clearest and most succinct natural language explanation there is to be had, and getting to anything more fundamental requires the above-mentioned mathematics.
Stranger