It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Has anybody considered any aerodynamic effects?

It doesn't seem like it would affect an object as heavy as this, but just wondering.

If there were aerodynamic effects there would be orientations that would cause the rotating object to fall faster, as is the case with golf balls.

-rrr




posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by BetweenMyths
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...

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.


Gravity does not cause object to orbit in any particular direction. We have satellites going in all sorts of orbits around the earth, like the GPS satellites. All that gravity does is pull objects down. the object stays up because it is traveling too fast and without friction, so its trajectory misses the ground (or atmosphere) perpetually.

There are other effects that cause retrograde orbits to be unlikely, at least as a natural occurrence. But those effects are small and do not prevent an object from having a retrograde orbit, just like gravity does not prevent you from throwing a ball in any direction (east or west).

-rrr



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


Thank you for being open-minded and willing to do experiments yourself. I put this thread out for people like yourself.

As far as aerodynamic effects go, please read the links to Hoagland's pages about the divergence from expected orbit of early US satellites. They're linked from the OP and from CJean's post a little later on the first page.

As far as retrograde orbits go... while I can't say with absolute certainty that we don't have any satellites in retrograde orbit, we tend to use the rotation of the earth as a slingshot to help escape the gravity well. This means that all our satellites tend to be orbiting in the same direcftion, broadly, though at different angles relative to the ecliptic.

In fact, there's an interesting and revealing passage in Jacques Valee's Forbidden Science where he describes his early years as an astronomer in France. One night he observed a satellite in retrograde orbit. (There were far fewer satellites in those days). His supervisor was so adamant that this was impossible that he became furious and tore the page out of the log.

When you get too attached to ideas that's what happens, you start to ignore evidence that goes against the grain.

I wasn't aware of satellites in the solar system that are in retrograde orbits, but I'd be VERY interested in them if I were an astronomer, and be looking at them as though they were very anomalous indeed and worthy of much close study. They'd introduce an element of instability into the system that was unlikely to survive in the long term, I'd have thought.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by rich23]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Thanks for pointing out the common practice of launching satellites in an "eastern" direction. I hadn't thought of that.

Here is a picture of the GPS satellites.

www.fc.up.pt...

Few or perhaps none of those satellites are rotating west to east. Maybe none of them are precisely going east to west either, but still... This should show that there is a wide variety of directions that one can throw satellites into space and get away with it, not only the west->east direction.

The system may not last a thousand years, but with enough propellant, it will last as long as needed to keep the GPS network practical. To tell you the truth I don't know precisely the magnitude of the effects that discourage retrograde orbits, although I am aware of their existence.

-rrr



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I know i should have read all the posts but i didnt so forgive any transgressions i make.

The effect described actually is within the laws of classical physics.

Too every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

When spinning a ball bearing the atoms push towards the outside against each other creating a small vacuum that attracts to the surface, so similar to the design of the wing. This gives a more viscosity against the air molecules outside of it...

To repeat. Like spinning a tennis ball on a piece of string around yourself, the atoms in the ball bearing push against each other in an outwards direction and this causes an opposite reaction in the form of a vacuum on its surface which compared to the surrounding air helps it travel through it.

However, this does have some major ramifications for theories or notions based on gravity, so you are in fact correct that it does affect some modern theories.

The relationship between the moon and the earth for example is intrinsic because of this... as is all gravity, as also this is the reason for static electricity among other things...














[edit on 23-2-2009 by spacial]

[edit on 23-2-2009 by spacial]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by spacial
 


If you could have another go at explaining that, I'd appreciate it.

At the moment, it doesn't make sense to me, and I suspect I'm not alone. You're also unique in using what you claim to be "classical" physics in this way.

You might also like to consider that the effects were first noticed in a vacuum, and also that exuberant1 has stated the experiment has been replicated in a vacuum, although I can't find any net links to show for it.

Reading ALL the material would be good before posting.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


"You might also like to consider that the effects were first noticed in a vacuum, and also that exuberant1 has stated the experiment has been replicated in a vacuum, although I can't find any net links to show for it."


The "separate environs" situation was the result of the flywheel and shaft being contained in a barrier, not a vacuum.

That was my mistake, I should have noted that part about the lack of a vacuum.

But I touched on it in my reply to Jim Scott:

"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 and influence from the air being disturbed by the rotating wheel, these 'predictable anomalies' will still occur..."

*I've been researching the 3 Axis rotation tables that are on the market, and none of them are capable of operating at the rate a triaxial version of the experiment requires - I guess we are out of luck with that one.... for now

I'm trying to find a 2-axis version of the ball-bearing experiment and get some proximity data for the flywheel experiments that have already been done at NASA.

Edit:

Hey Rich, google 'Gravity Probe B' - you'll appreciate what you find *wink*

Here's one of the Quartz Gyroscopes - Accurate to 40 atomic layers.

(Image courtesy of Wired.com)

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
there's no reason why it wouldn't work in a vacuum...



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by spacial
 


If you could have another go at explaining that, I'd appreciate it.
.


When something is spun, matter wants to move away from the centre of where it is spun.

Like a neutron bomb kind of thing...

Or a discus thrower... or should i say the disk...

When something is spun all the atoms within that object desire to get away from the centre of what it is spinning around.

Each atom will fly out on a trajectory that would look like a helix.

It would move outwards and circular.

If the difference is strong in wavelengths between these atoms and those outside itself (a perfect vacuum being the quintessential difference)

then a force will happen. In this case we call it gravity.

I hope that also answers somebody else's question about what is the opposite to gravity, for there is the answer...

The biggest question i ask myself is how long does it take for a penny to drop?







[edit on 23-2-2009 by spacial]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
It doesn't defy known physics, it is just not well known.

Short answer is, spin affects drag. Less drag allows an object to travel faster with the same amount of force, therefor traveling further.

The Magus effect. Tennis is a great example of this; making the ball drop fast or stay afloat longer.

On a side note. Hyperdimensional Physics... does not explain Sun spot cycles, Jupiter's red spot, polar cyclones on other planets. Our "normal" physics explain all those. Some of those recreated easily at home with a fast spinning bucket of water. Others, well take plasma which most people just don't have laying around at home.


There is one interesting note about hyperdimensional physics (which is not explained by it, it just brings it up) is why spinning objects travel faster in space, a vacuum. They need to be spinning a certain way, but still. A movie called "Mission to Mars" hinted on this at the end of the movie, and parts of it were "removed" by NASA because of "copyright infringements". (How you can copyright a predicted physic event baffles me).



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacial
there's no reason why it wouldn't work in a vacuum...


Yup.

The effect would also be more pronounced in a vacuum.

The ball-bearings experience no air resistance on the way up ;0)





[edit on 23-2-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


Rich, this is simply due to aerodynamic effects, in my best estimation. I can't derive equations to give approximate values of lift, but it's the same as how a pitcher may throw a curveball.

It doesn't violate known physics, sadly. Air is a fluid, and spinning objects such as a baseball manipulate that fluid (sort of) so create the aerodynamic effects we've seen.

And FYI, classical mechanics does include such angular quantities as angular momentum and torque. You simply rediscovered aerodynamics, not any kind of antigravity. Try doing this in a vacuum and you'll see no difference in trajectory between the spinning and non-spinning ball.


Did the experimenter calculate the lift that would be generated and the hypothesized trajectory before running this experiment to find a divergence? Can any of us (I might have the time, but not now).

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Johnmike]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
The experiment isn't compelling. First, the trajectories aren't all that difference. Second, the effects of air resistance were ignored, but are likely not negligible.

Rotation is a well-known factor that affects the trajectories of baseballs and golf balls, among other things. True, the golf ball is dimpled to take advantage of the viscosity of air, and a baseball has a rough surface that can enhance this effect.

Even so, I'm wondering how much effect air resistance would have on a ball bearing. The relative surface area to mass of a small ball bearing would be enough to strongly affect the trajectory. A large ball bearing would experience significantly less interaction with the air. Surface area changes by the square of the bearing's diameter, while the mass changes by the cube of the diameter. As the bearing gets larger, the mass would eventually swamp the effects of the surface area. As the bearing gets smaller, the mass becomes swamped by the surface effects.

The experiment needs to be conducted in a vacuum, or it needs to use bearings that are massive enough that surface effects aren't significant. Without determining the effects of air resistance, the experiment is inconclusive.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacial
When something is spun, matter wants to move away from the centre of where it is spun.

Like a neutron bomb kind of thing...

Or a discus thrower... or should i say the disk...


I'm being really quite patient here. You say you can explain things in terms of classical physics and then you talk about matter "wanting to move". The kind of classical physics that I grew up with describes this in terms of Newton's Laws of Motion, to wit that an object acted upon by a force will tend to move in a straight line unless acted upon by another force.

I'd ask you to explain what the hell you mean by "like a neutron bomb kind of thing", but... actually, I don't think I have that much time to waste. (Sorry, patience wearing a little bit thin there).


When something is spun all the atoms within that object desire to get away from the centre of what it is spinning around.

Each atom will fly out on a trajectory that would look like a helix.


Like a discus? I think you'll find that their trajectory, once released, is in a straight line away from the thrower, with of course a vertical component dictated by the laws of gravity. There's nothing helical about it.

I'm sorry, I'd deal with the rest of your points but my head started to fotate so fast it had a desire to get away from the centre of what it is spinning around.


The biggest question i ask myself is how long does it take for a penny to drop?


And, indeed, how long is a piece of string? I think the penny has dropped.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
More people who haven 't read the linked material...


Originally posted by Johnmike
And FYI, classical mechanics does include such angular quantities as angular momentum and torque. You simply rediscovered aerodynamics, not any kind of antigravity. Try doing this in a vacuum and you'll see no difference in trajectory between the spinning and non-spinning ball.


This is getting dull.

First, I'm aware that angular momentum and torque come from classical physics. It's the effect of angular momentum on the torsion field or ether (to give it its old unfashionable name) that we're looking at here.

And "I" haven't rediscovered aerodynamics. I came across an experiment which only one person so far on this thread is interested in replicating for himself, with the more than honorurable exception of exuberant1 who clearly knows his way around the experiments and has validated them for himself.

You haven't read all of the links. Go back, do that, and maybe you'll be able to contribute something to the discussion that hasn't already been said and rejected.

Have you done any of the experiments yourself? Why do gyroscopes show a small but measurable reduction in weight? How do you account for a divergence between the two timepieces in the second experiment?


Did the experimenter calculate the lift that would be generated and the hypothesized trajectory before running this experiment to find a divergence? Can any of us (I might have the time, but not now).


If your maths is really that good, why don't you do that: look at the photo, do the calculations I suggested earlier in the thread, from which you can deduce the size and therefore approximate mass of the ball bearings, and see if there's a non-negligible divergence that accounts for the difference in trajectories?

Then you'd be contributing something to the thread, rather than not reading what's been posted and just interposing your own prejudices on the matter.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin
 


My assertion is that the effect of the laminar flow on the path of the ball-bearing is negligible...



And I think that's what you'll find I alluded to in my post. In fact, I think I said along the lines of discounting laminar flow effects, how do we explain it?

You're a bit snippy aren't you?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MR1159
 


Snippy, now and again... I'm not going to deny it. But generally, only with people who don't take the trouble to read the posts and links and who post drivel. It's been a long day.

And whatever else I am, I do try to be clear, honest and direct. If I was snippy with you, I apologise. However, there are some people I've definitely been terse with who won't see my gracious side, I'm afraid. But then, some people just post... utter twaddle. Sorry, but there it is.

People come to a thread like this from a number of different perspectives. There are those who think we can explain everything in terms of what we know already. Given that we've been doing proper empirical science for a relatively short time (if we indeed are at all) this attitude seems to me simultaneously arrogant, self-satisfied and lazy.

Then there are people who aren't sure of what's going on. I respect that attitude: it seems to me properly cautious and I'd more or less put myself in that category. The only reason I'd not fit myself in that category completely is that, rightly or wrongly, I have favourites among the ideas that rattle around both my brain and the larger context. Some of these ideas may seem heretical to those in the first category.

Then there are the people who genuinely want to find out. Those people I respect completely, particularly if they have the practical and mathematical smarts to do something about a thread like this rather than pontificate from a rather flimsy idea of superiority.

I've been reading quite a lot of the articles on Bruce DePalma's tribute website, and I have to say I really like the way he thinks. Not because of his tendency to be a bit of an enthusiastic acid-muncher, which he apparently was, but because he truly grasped Korzybski's distinction between the map and the territory, which so few posters on ATS understand.

He also, did he but know it, was something of a Taoist in his outlook. I found The Tao of Physics to be rather irritating myself, but it did at least draw some very sensible parallels between the universe as seen through the lens of modern physics and as percieved, rather more directly, by Taoist sages. For example, DePalma says


On the highest level of abstraction Force is Intelligence; consequently the primordial field is intelligent. Within the limits imposed by the capability of my human mind reality exists as it is. Its architecture is beyond the scope of my discovery.


I find this highly congruent with, if not precisely equivalent to, Lao-Tse's

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao



There are other parallels, but we're veering off-topic. Plus, you probably think this is BS and without the relevant background there's no reason you shouldn't.

People who attack Hoagland are indulging in meaningless ad hominems. As I've said before, he's a populariser and most of the interesting aspects of his work come from elsewhere. I don't care: he brought it to my attention and for that I'm grateful.

One of the central and most utter, complete failures of modern science is the problem of consciousness. I strongly suspect that the torsion field is completely central to understanding consciousness, and indeed a host of other phenomena: the nature of time, gravity and the interaction between UFO propulsion systems and human consciousness.

I mention this so other people will know where I'm coming from on this, more or less, and will understand my bias.

Anyway, back to the thread. I preserve a fond, optimistic hope that some resourceful student will actually try and replicate both of these experiments one day.

Not... you know, holding my breath, though.



[edit on 23-2-2009 by rich23]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by spacial
When something is spun, matter wants to move away from the centre of where it is spun.

Like a neutron bomb kind of thing...

Or a discus thrower... or should i say the disk...


I'm being really quite patient here. You say you can explain things in terms of classical physics and then you talk about matter "wanting to move". The kind of classical physics that I grew up with describes this in terms of Newton's Laws of Motion, to wit that an object acted upon by a force will tend to move in a straight line unless acted upon by another force.

I'd ask you to explain what the hell you mean by "like a neutron bomb kind of thing", but... actually, I don't think I have that much time to waste. (Sorry, patience wearing a little bit thin there).


When something is spun all the atoms within that object desire to get away from the centre of what it is spinning around.

Each atom will fly out on a trajectory that would look like a helix.


Like a discus? I think you'll find that their trajectory, once released, is in a straight line away from the thrower, with of course a vertical component dictated by the laws of gravity. There's nothing helical about it.

I'm sorry, I'd deal with the rest of your points but my head started to fotate so fast it had a desire to get away from the centre of what it is spinning around.


The biggest question i ask myself is how long does it take for a penny to drop?


And, indeed, how long is a piece of string? I think the penny has dropped.


Put food in a blender, turn it on and then take the lid off and measure that on a graph...

Or pottery on a pottery wheel...

or

d21c.com...


If an object is pushed in a vacuum then it goes on a straight line but if an object is spun then obviously it follows a different trajectory because the force is circular and this explains the experiment put forward.

I mean what is your hypothesis for those of us that have patience?



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I should point out an extra issue that experiementers be aware of
when calculating trajectories using stroboscopic cameras.

The frame capture rate of the camera needs to be AT LEAST 1000
frames per second to get rid of motion-blur and smear effects,
so something like an Optikon system would be ideal.

See Weblink:

www.optikon.ca...

Other things readers need to be aware of is that such an
experiment needs to allow for boundary layer formation
and chaotic turbulence at the "Leading Edges" of a sphere.

Because we cannot know with absolute certainty the initial
conditions of the balls' trajectories, it becomes a chaotic system
thus has a fractal-like exponentiation that causes a turbulent
and chaotic boundary layer to form near the ball surface which
"sticks like glue" to the microscopically uneven surface of the
steel spheres.

This turbulent boundary layer has MEASURABLE EFFECTS
upon the aerodynamics of the balls and therefore their
angular momentum and resulting trajectory.

These are in addition to the directional effects caused by
the frontal bow waves slight redirecting a ball's path as it
PUSHES its way through the air. There are also the resulting
micro-shock waves produced by such movement within gaseous
environments also causing variations in ball aerodynamics.

It is unlikely the balls are ABSOLUTELY spherical and or even
the same diameter or shape...only precision machined test
balls could reduce the effects of material variations.

Add all of the above physical and chaotic effects and the
test itself becomes somewhat meaningless since there are too
many uncontrollabel variables when performing the experiment
with garden variety dissimilar spheres within a gaseous
environment.

Ideally twin precision-machined Osmium or Platinum balls
of proven equal weight, diameter and surface polish would be
expelled from a precision-machined scientific quality centrifuge
within a hard vacuum environment and the events captured
by a 10,000+ frames per second visible spectrum and
infra-red camera which could prove or disprove SOME
of the theories raised here.

What is basically being espoused here are gyroscopic effects
that have been well documented and put into practical use
because of their inherent PHYSICAL SCALE.

What I PROPOSE is a rather DIFFERENT experiment where
a STABLE HEAVY ELEMENT such as vapourised gold, lead,
bismuth is accelerated within a vacuum to hyper-velocities
using linear induction coils.

Basically bend some really thick steel pipe into a donut ring
and use some pulsed coil-magnets to accelerate ionised
gold vapour within the hard, hard vacuum of the air-evacuated
ring of pipe (noting to use magnetic confinement to keep the
spinning gold vapour from hitting the walls of the pressure
vessel) and see what happens.....>>>

I'll bet you see some rather interesting effects within
confines of the toroid itself and some rather interesting
effects on objects NEARBY the toroid!

If nothing happens keep pressurizing the toroid with
more ionized gold vapour to something around
20,000+ psi and THEN watch very closely..........
as you pulse the linear induction coils to build
ever-greater velocity of the gold vapour.
i.e. let it keep spinning round-and-round, ever-faster
and faster until the cows come home....!!!

You should eventually notice that there are micro-vortices formed
within the spinning gold vapour which approach absolutely
incredible angular speeds....and there should be some other
"weird" effects but you'll have to find out about those yourself!

:-) ;-)



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by StargateSG7
This turbulent boundary layer has MEASURABLE EFFECTS
upon the aerodynamics of the balls and therefore their
angular momentum and resulting trajectory.


Do you know how to calculate these effects? What are the formulae required? Without someone actually duplicating the experiment, which I have neither the time nor the resources to do (that's why I'm suggesting it as a science project for kids), all we have to go on is the one photograph.

As I've already suggested, there's enough data on the photograph for someone to do some calculations to estimate the size and therefore mass (assuming, for example, that they are made from steel) of the bearings.

Can you calculate the effects of the airflow over the bearings for a range of rotational speeds reasonable to assume for an ordinary power drill at maximum revs?

I'm asserting that the turbulence factor is insufficient to account for the divergence in trajectories and rates of falling. A ball-bearing is a dense and reasonably smooth object, so I feel comfortable about making this assertion. I don't have the maths to make a calculation to demonstrate this, but apparently the posters who are happy to assert it is all due to aerodynamic flow (and who are happy to ignore most of the information I linked to which consistently showed that the effect shows up in a vacuum too) don't either.

As the effect shows up in a vacuum, I'm happy to assert that aerodynamic flows aren't responsible for the observed effect. No-one has yet come up with some convincing maths to demonstrate that they are.


Ideally twin precision-machined Osmium or Platinum balls
of proven equal weight....


Ideally, NASA would stop being a front for those people who wish to stifle progress and keep certain technologies out of the public view. I mean, it's a fantastic experiment, with lots of delicious attention to detail, but who's got the budget for that sort of thing and is it really necessary? As another poster said, why not just spin up a gyroscope and measure the reduction in weight?

People are getting really hung up on explaining the first experiment in terms of aerodynamics despite frequent reminders that the effect showed up in space. Tedious.




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join