It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Two Simple Experiments that Violate Known Physics

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:18 AM
The experiment by the OP does not happen in a vacuum. Spin can create surface air motion, and may create some form of lift. That's my guess.
Ever golf? Same effect.

The spinning steel ring probably creates a magnetic field that affects the electronics in the watch. The earth's magnetic field will also affect orbiting devices. Some think it is related to change of time due to speed (relativity), but in this universe it's pretty hard to get away from any magnetic fields to test that concept. In this experiment, you would have to subtract any influences from the earth's magnetic field in relation to the field created in that field by the rotation of the steel ring. The ring is not stationary while it is spinning on it's axis, it is on a rotating earth in a moving solar system. It never occupies the same space twice.

What do you think, Phage?

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Jim Scott]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:21 AM
This is very interesting indeed, thanks for the info.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:27 AM
I'd like to see this experiment done in a slightly different way so it'd be easier to see if the effect mentioned is real or not.

Instead of using two balls and dropping them at the same time, why not use the same ball dropped two times, once spinning, once not.
That way they'd both be identical weight, shape etc and be falling from the exact same location too.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:34 AM
With respect to the late Dr Palmer's endeavors, he was supported by financial backers in seeking a free energy device based on his concept of homopolar generators. They were always disappointed as none of his devices broke the conservation of energy principle. His biography is an interesting tale and one used as an example to others by my old science teacher.

Even now youtube, websites and books promote this idea that DC generators and magnetic fields will solve our energy problems. I'm glad there are people out there honestly believing in what they do. The search for free energy (cheap is fine by me!) is an honorable and generous dream. Unfortunately, until certain fundamental principles provide loopholes, they will always be disappointed and mainstream science will ignore them.

They do get financial support from backers (Kevin Costner has lost millions for free energy) but until they overcome the same set of rules that govern physics for everyone it's like betting on a three-legged horse.

Regarding Hoagland, he's outside of mainstream by choice. I'm not a PhD scientist and therefore won't open myself to criticism by questioning his credentials. Luckily, Phil Plait has raised some questions.

I'm not naive and would not be surprised if some PetroChemCorp suppressed a cheap energy device until they've made the last dollar. However, I'd be surprised if it comes from anywhere other than a conservative organization supported by either Govt or Corps and according to basic principles. In my opinion, a peer-reviewed theoretical paper will (or has been
) show the breakthrough.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:40 AM
Last Paragraph, Moon Hunting Section: "Many such moons also have retrograde orbits, meaning they travel around Saturn in the opposite direction compared to most of the other moons and the direction the planet rotates. The unusual orbits of these oddball outer moons provide hints at their identities; they are likely captures objects the strayed too close to Saturn and became ensnared by its gravity."

How does physics explain the ability of moons to be able to orbit in different directions around the same planet? Even if some moons are captures, I would have thought that Jupiters gravity would make those moons orbit in the same direction as the others.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:41 AM
hello guys

I think I add my 2 cent ...
I am a Scientist, I work in Biology ..And I can tell you 100% for sure
How do I know this ? Easy . I am 40 years now I am working in science for about 20 years and have had to bend many many facts in the search for funding ..
You see , Science as we know it is full of holes and lies (ohh yes Lies )

It’s like this ...A scientist has a theory and would like to experiment

now it’s completely irrelevant if this theory is sound as long as you have FUNDING
All that matters is funding because NO scientist can work without it ...
So u have a theory and it doesn’t fit with modern Science as we know it You just won’t get funded

Science is soo easy to control its scary
As we scientists will need to eat as well we in the end research the useless because we can predict its outcome and secure funding ..
You people need to realize that all SCIENCE IS is proofing the obvious ..
All science you know is false , directed and known well in advance ..
you cannot work for a big Pharmacy pig and after 3 years of research come back to them and tell them you have not been able to proof your thesis as put out at the beginning of the research ..This is SUICVIDE as a scientist
NO you make sure after 1 - 2 years you have the exact OUTCOMAE desired
if not you will make the outcome as desired ..
Do u people understand this now >?
It’s irrelevant to a certain extend what the REAL outcome is as long as it’s the desired predicted outcome the company wants ///
Many times we start our research and KNOW well in advance (YEARS) the outcome but HEY ...Everyone is happy everyone gets PAID!!!


The so Called SCIENTIFIC constants are build in as a fail safe ...
You will NEVER be able to proof anything because you are ridiculed if you don’t adhere to the CONSTANTS in science ..
Furthermore you will never be taking serious again by your peers ( another fail safe build in is PEER PRESSURE TO NOT BE DIFFERENT , JEEEE boy think of your funding don’t be a renegade or you never eat again ...It’s simple and effective ...society is been doing this for centuries ...Scientist are NEVER FREE ! Never do they have enough time and money to really research what they want ...NEVER in 20 years in my case ..
You see why most scientist SHUT UP and do as they told and never ever (publicly) would question a so called scientific constant ...

You are fool if you trust your science books !!!
They are put there to INHIBIT research ..To tie down any future person who would dare to think outside the box ..
My 2 cent on this ...
Any genius child in the field of science would do very well to never start reading any science books and work on their own ...This of course will never happen but if it would ..we would see real progress
Instead the young are instilled and corrupted by the books limiting their thought process from very early in life (school)

Another thing you CAN research to see the corruption ..
Take any given research project (biology, Physics.etc etc )
PLZ think WHO pays for the research what was the desired outcome (thesis) then look AT the outcome ...If you look at these 2 things on almost every research conducted you will see ....

FACT : thinking outside the box does not pay ... you won’t do it as your research will never be funded again ..FULL STOP ! We know this and we work according to this ..of course this has nothing to do with research but as Most people on this so troubled planet Scientist are SCRAED and do as they told in fear of going hungry ...That’s the way it is and always has been ..

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:04 AM
I suppose that rotating ball produce aerodynamic lifting force exactly like rotating baseball ball. It was explained in Mythbusters. You can pus different type of rotation. In one case the force lift ball higher in other it decrees trajectory. Nothing which violate physics.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:38 AM
reply to post by Jim Scott

"The experiment by the OP does not happen in a vacuum. Spin can create surface air motion, and may create some form of lift."

The experiment has been replicated in a vacuum. Each time, the 'anomaly' can also be replicated - however It cannot be sustained and has yet to be performed using multiple axis.

(yes, I will post links - but if you don't want to wait, then use google, because that is what I am going to do when I look for the links to post...)

The second experiment mentioned in the OP does not require a vacuum and does produce some unique and sustainable effects within the field of rotation - even with the flywheel contained in such a manner to as to negate and prevent any influence from the air being disturbed by the rotating wheel, these 'predictable anomalies' will still occur...

I would like to see the flywheel experiment replicated in space ;-)

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:49 AM
You can't propel an object in motion at the same rate you lauch a static object, the spinning ball has a totally different set of properties due to momentum, friction, etc thus when launched it has a different start force than the other which makes this experiment impossible to measure, unless you could account for them and deduct or add the differences -which hasn't been done.

With a larger object, such as football we can see very clearly how rotation builds areas of pressure and negative pressure, a spinning ball will curve neatly into the net with just the right rotational force applied when kicked. While air friction would be lower on a ball bearing it can't be discounted the very rapid rate of spin would multiply the effect. Also a ball bearing is probably made from a magnetic metal so when spinning fast it's electromagnetic field would create a similar (although completely different) effect and could repel against the earths core again adding extra force into the issue -this is a standard effect of electromagnetism and not anti-gravity,

Interesting experiment showing some of the more subtle effects of kinetic physics however anti-grav it is not.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:13 AM
Yikes! This is a long way to go for just a little. Get a gyroscope, weigh it accurately. Start it spinning, weigh it again. Is there a difference?

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:17 AM
reply to post by Kandinsky

I read the article you linked. It's a sustained attempt to show that Hoagland has taken credit for the ideas of others. Ok, fine.

  1. Hoagland is a populariser
  2. he's not a scientist
  3. it's not germane to whether these experiments can be replicated
  4. in any case, the history of science is replete with ego clashes and self-aggrandisement, as any cursory reading of Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything shows.

Hoagland does give credit to Gennady Shipov, whose Wiki entry says that he defrauded the Russian state by mis-spending funds.

Of course, when you look into it a little further, it turns out to be the usual attack by the old guard who are determined to demonstrate that such a thing simply cannot be.

There's some interesting correspondence between Shipov and respected physicist Jack Sarfatti -

I was alluding to "Konkretny's" attacks that have no real physics in them. He represents the Russian "CISCOP" debunkers obviously. I do not know the local politics in Moscow leading to his attacks which do not hold up under close scrutiny.

Those with a higher mathematical bent will find this comment embedded in a sea of stuff which they might be able to make sense of, here. As I've said, I'm not a mathematician, but I am a keen observer of human nature and history which gives me a particular perspective on "the scientific method" best summed up in my contributions to this thread.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:19 AM
reply to post by son of PC

Excellent point. Anyone got any answers to this? Is the fricton of the air against the flywheel causing lift? If so, why?

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:17 AM

And why the laminar flow around the rotating ball-bearing should translate into lift is quite beyond me.

I do not mean to be rude but if you can make a statement like this then clearly you don't understand enough physics to comment on this subject. It is beyond the scope of this short post for me to explain how laminar flow around a rotating ball can sometimes translate into lift, but it can and does, depending on the direction of the ball and the axis of rotation.

Incidentally I do not think this is the sole reason for the divergence of the spinning ball but it will be a contributing factor if the experiment was conducting in the atmosphere as opposed to a vacuum.

That lift may even be negative, depending on the spin.

I do not understand the premise of the post. I would have been surprised if the spinning ball did not diverge from the un-spun one because of the these factors including angular momentum.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:28 AM
reply to post by rich23

"Is the fricton of the air against the flywheel causing lift? If so, why? "

It could, but...

'...even with the flywheel contained in such a manner to as to negate any prevent and influence from the air being disturbed by the rotating wheel, these 'predictable anomalies' will still occur...'

So the anomaly will still be present, even with the flywheel and Accutron in 'separate environs' - this effect only occurs at extremely high RPMs, and the flywheel has to be of sufficient mass.

The effect weakens as the measurement device moves further outside the plane of rotation of the flywheel, but [strangely] does not appear to be affected by proximity whilst in the plane of rotation.... Almost as spooky as the double-slit experiment ;-)

(However, the scientists at NASA who discovered this were quite lazy and didn't bother to go more than forty feet away from the flywheel. Glorious.)

"Science: The Noblest Endeavour"

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin

I should have specified,horizontal rotation translating into lift.

I would assume, not having replicated the experiment myself, that the direction of rotation is more or less horizontal. This would be implied by the set-up of the experiment.

And if you're that well-informed, why not post the refutation rather than impugn my posts?

And for those who would compare ball-bearings to baseballs or footballs in an attempt to debunk the experiment -

A ball-bearing is not a football. Mass compared to surface area, which are the two factors that will determine whether laminar flow has any effect, are completely different. My assertion is that the effect of the laminar flow on the path of the ball-bearing is negligible - and as exuberant1 has stated, the results have been duplicated in a vacuum.

If you look in the original post you'll see that there's a link to Hoagland's pages on Wernher Von Braun. Please read and note that the divergence between expected and actual trajectories for spinning satellites were to do with objects moving in vacuo.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:47 AM
reply to post by Exuberant1

Whoops... we're at cross-purposes here, exuberant1. I was replying to a poster who pointed out that you should be able to determine whether there's any weight loss when you spin up a gyroscope. It's not to do with the accutron experiment.

And apparently, there is weight loss, as you can see from this NYT article:

Japanese scientists have reported that small gyroscopes lose weight when spun under certain conditions, apparently in defiance of gravity. If proved correct, the finding would mark a stunning scientific advance, but experts said they doubted that it would survive intense scrutiny.

And, gosh, people are still looking into this stuff...

So I was actually being tongue-in-cheek when I was replying to the other poster and suggesting airflow as a contributing factor.

Sorry for the crossed wires

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:02 AM
Oh, for the genuinely enquiring amongst those who may come across this thread, as opposed to those who come merely to debunk, you might like to look into the work of Yevgeny Podkletnov and Ning Li. The latter was funded by NASA, and even had a reporter from Popular Mechanics observe her work with approval... strangely, she seems to have dropped from sight rather mysterisouly.

There's a rather good thread about it here.

Podkletnov was investigating the effects of rotating superconductors and discovered what might be an antigravity effect. I first came across his name when I was looking into the TR3-B Astra, or flying triangle, which is alleged, by Edgar Fouche, to use a mercury plasma rotated at relativistic speeds to cancel the inertia of 89% of the vehicle.

Perhaps using a superconductor which acts like a giant Bose-Einstein condensate increases the effect, somehow, I don't know (but I wish someone would do the research in the public domain for a change).

When you watch what happens to all these results, the pattern is the same: initial promise followed by the story disappearing from the news. Check the Ning Li thread and see what happened there, it's very interesting.

This whole thing has also made me re-think some weird UFO sightings I've read about in which the vehicle is described as being like a room with complex, whirling gyroscope-type assemblies at each corner. I used to think of these as just an example of "high strangeness"... now I think a little differently about it.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:19 AM
reply to post by rich23

I get it... I will have to try it for myself. But yes, an object should always accelerate down at "G" according to conventional (Newtonian) physics.

And an object could fall down more slowly with a frame dragging effect of tremendous (close to light speed) rotational speeds, but not axial rotation, it would have to be rotation of say, wheels with their axis on a torus. Although this form of weight loss is not practical with any mainstream materials because the objects would break as they rotate.

But for an object to experience an inertial loss or weight loss such that it accelerates slower than G **merely** by rotating it with a drill (nowhere near light speed) is trully outside all known physics. Whether or not the effect really happens is up to experimentation. I can't wait to try it!!!


posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:19 AM
This is such a fun thread to read - all of your brains creaking together in unison, trying to come to grips with a challenge of physics!

Actually, the content is way beyond my simple understanding, but to the Bible readers among you: doesn't it make you think about the 'wheels within wheels' of Ezekiel's description:

"Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.
The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went."

-- Ezekiel 1: 15-17 (KJV)

Curiouser and curiouser....

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Are you sure the effect of the balls trejectory is unknown to physics.
It seems to me that it could be caused by centripital force.

Note: I am not referring to centrifugal force. Centripital force is different.

There is nothing for centripetal force to work against if the object is in free fall. According to conventional physics the momentum of the object is conserved and it should simply fall down at G, as if it wasn't rotating. If it indeed falls down at less than G it cannot be explained with Newtonian physics. And it should be explainable with Newtonian physics as the speeds involved are nowhere near the speed of light.


new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in