Two Simple Experiments that Violate Known Physics

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by harrytuttle

 

More fancy graphics. Gosh, you've been to a lot of trouble.

Last time you distorted the data by removing crucial elements that showed that the two ball bearings were falling at different rates.

Now you're introducing the idea that the ball bearings have different initial velocities.

If you can explain how this can occur when the same initial upward force is applied to both balls, I'd be really interested.

Until then, it looks to me like an intellectually dishonest way of approaching the subject.

If every time you contribute to the thread you have to remove some of the data or introduce a distortion, what does that say for your objectivity?

Have you attempted to replicate the experiment yourself? No. And on the basis of what you've posted so far, I wouldn't trust you to.

By including extra energy to the spinning you are giving it overall more energy than the ball not spinning. So the upward force is the same but not the complete force.


I wish we could all just use our collective brains to work through this together.

No one has all the scientific knowledge at hand to make absolute definite answers but interesting things are coming into this discussion.

Do we need the attacks?

And just to be really clear on this...

Both ball-bearings were in containers attached to the same drill.

The upward force was applied to the drill.

Therefore the same force was applied to both ball-bearings, surely?

It shouldn't matter if for each repetition of the experiment the upward thrust applied by the experimenter varies, because the control is the ball-bearing that isn't spinning.

What you'll get is a bunch of different repetitions with two separate trajectories. Perhaps the repetitions and the different trajectories will tell you something.

In the initial photograph, we can see that the distance travelled by each ball-bearing between the final two strobes is pretty different. We can safely assume that while the start of each trajectory may be vertically different, the ball-bearings were subjected to the same upward force and released at the same time. (If someone wants to challenge that assumption, fine - just tell me how it's possible given the set-up as described.)

That should mean, therefore, that the balls fall at the same rate of acceleration - 9.81 m/s2 - and should be travelling at the same speed at the final points of data capture.

They clearly are not. Some people would like to say this is due to aerodymamic effects, but can't back this up with a convincing calculation.

Oh... and before I forget - Phage said that "no-one had repeated the experiment" as though that was proof enough of its lack of validity.

That's precisely what I'm trying to remedy. What's the problem?

[edit on 24-2-2009 by rich23]

reply to post by rich23


Ok but a torque was applied to the spinning ball was it not?

Originally posted by JBA2848
But on the same note a bullet fired parallel to the ground will hit the ground at the same time as the casing ejected just a lot futher away. Gravitys effect is the same on both.

This is my point... when you look at the photograph, particularly the last couple of strobes, you can see that the two ball-bearings are falling at different rates despite being subjected to the same upward force at the same time. That's why it doesn't look to me as if gravity is affecting both objects in the same way.

reply to post by rich23


"...two ball-bearings are falling at different rates despite being subjected to the same upward force at the same time. That's why it doesn't look to me as if gravity is affecting both objects in the same way."

You nailed it.

Since we both recognize that there is an anomaly that occurs with the ball-bearing rotating on just one axis - Do you think that the effects of the anomaly would be more or less pronounced if the ball-bearing was spinning on two axis?

(And we already know that done in a vaccum, the spinning ball-bearing would actually travel slightly higher due to lack of air resistance, as would the other ball-bearing.)

OK... you've been persistent, and polite, but part of the reason I haven't responded is that you seem insistent that "classical physics" explains this while displaying what seems to me to be a rather shaky grasp of classical physics... I mean, even shakier than mine, for heaven's sake.

Originally posted by spacial
As such, applying a force such as spinning an object in a vacuum will enact a force that competes not with the air molecules per se but with the actual pressurized system.

you will need a greater force to spin such an object because it now competes with the pressure as soon as it is spun.

You appear to be saying that spinning, for example, a ball-bearing requires more force in a vacuum even though air resistance is no longer a factor.

This makes no sense to me. The "actual pressurised system", by which I assume you mean the ball-bearing, has not changed. Why should it take more force to spin it in a vacuum?

Here's how I would understand the situation in terms of classical physics. Let's say the ball-bearing is made of steel. Therefore there will be iron atoms in the ball-bearing. Let's narrow our focus to look at one such, conveniently located on the surface of the sphere at the "equator", assuming, for simplicity's sake, that the bearing is spinning on one axis.

Our hypothetical iron atom is subjected to a force that, with no other forces acting upon it, would make it travel in a straight line. What stops it from doing so is the chemical bond that keeps it as part of the alloy. The cohesiveness of the alloy is what stops the ball-bearing from flying apart. The speed of rotation would have to be truly enormous for those chemical bonds to be under serious threat.

This occurs because the agitated molecules within the object that is being spun will create pressure away from the epicenter of the rotational force and thus create a force against it's surrounding environment.

I don't think there will be any force against the surrounding environment because all the pressure you speak of is easily handled by the chemical bonding I've just described. Plus, in a vacuum, there's nothing to apply force to.

The problem with the current theory of gravity (last time i checked anyway) is the belief that gravity is created by mass and mass alone. It does not entertain the relationship between centripetal forces and gravity in a more universal theory.

I think, but I'm not sure, that Phage may already have dealt with this. I have trouble with your posts, as I've said, because it seems to me that while you say classical physics has dealt with the effect posited in the OP, your explanations show that you don't then explain what's going on in the same way classical physics does. Rotating a ball-bearing, in classical physics, shouldn't make any difference to its trajectory unless there's interaction with the atmosphere.

reply to post by Exuberant1


I have no idea whether the effect would be more pronounced if the ball-bearing were spinning on more than one axis.

However, I have been thinking that, if the drill is held at an angle, the ball-bearing would be rotated on two perpendicular axes at once. It makes my head hurt just thinking about it but I think I'm correct in saying that the "side" of the spinning cup would make the bb rotate on one axis while the "bottom" of the cup would make it rotate on a mutually perpendicular one.

EDIT to add: further, headache-inducing, thought suggests that the bb is then released on the last available mutually perpendicular axis.

If you want to rotate the thing on the x-, y-, and z-axes at the same time, finding a way to release the bb might prove problematical.



[edit on 24-2-2009 by rich23]

Originally posted by rich23
OK... you've been persistent, and polite, but part of the reason I haven't responded is that you seem insistent that "classical physics" explains this while displaying what seems to me to be a rather shaky grasp of classical physics... I mean, even shakier than mine, for heaven's sake.

Originally posted by spacial
As such, applying a force such as spinning an object in a vacuum will enact a force that competes not with the air molecules per se but with the actual pressurized system.

you will need a greater force to spin such an object because it now competes with the pressure as soon as it is spun.

You appear to be saying that spinning, for example, a ball-bearing requires more force in a vacuum even though air resistance is no longer a factor.

This makes no sense to me. The "actual pressurised system", by which I assume you mean the ball-bearing, has not changed. Why should it take more force to spin it in a vacuum?

Here's how I would understand the situation in terms of classical physics. Let's say the ball-bearing is made of steel. Therefore there will be iron atoms in the ball-bearing. Let's narrow our focus to look at one such, conveniently located on the surface of the sphere at the "equator", assuming, for simplicity's sake, that the bearing is spinning on one axis.

Our hypothetical iron atom is subjected to a force that, with no other forces acting upon it, would make it travel in a straight line. What stops it from doing so is the chemical bond that keeps it as part of the alloy. The cohesiveness of the alloy is what stops the ball-bearing from flying apart. The speed of rotation would have to be truly enormous for those chemical bonds to be under serious threat.

This occurs because the agitated molecules within the object that is being spun will create pressure away from the epicenter of the rotational force and thus create a force against it's surrounding environment.

I don't think there will be any force against the surrounding environment because all the pressure you speak of is easily handled by the chemical bonding I've just described. Plus, in a vacuum, there's nothing to apply force to.

The problem with the current theory of gravity (last time i checked anyway) is the belief that gravity is created by mass and mass alone. It does not entertain the relationship between centripetal forces and gravity in a more universal theory.

I think, but I'm not sure, that Phage may already have dealt with this. I have trouble with your posts, as I've said, because it seems to me that while you say classical physics has dealt with the effect posited in the OP, your explanations show that you don't then explain what's going on in the same way classical physics does. Rotating a ball-bearing, in classical physics, shouldn't make any difference to its trajectory unless there's interaction with the atmosphere.

What i am saying is that if you measure the density of the atoms in a spinning object, those closer to the surface will be more dense than those at the centre. It may be minute but it is there. See HERE to see the behavior in a more pliable substance.

I see what you mean by chemical bonding, i am talking about minute amounts... But everything affects everything else. This is still a force. It's the force that keeps the universe together.

You are completely right about the vacuum and ball bearing, i got that wrong, i was thinking of another model sorry.

In my model the affects of the experiment in a vacuum would actually be less. Sorry for the confusion. This affect would be negligible, perhaps unmeasurable but still less.

The speed of rotation would have to be truly enormous for those chemical bonds to be under serious threat.

Look there are two factors Mass and rotational speed. So you can have a large object and small amounts of rotation or a small object and large amounts of rotation but yes. I am not talking about breaking I am talking much smaller micro level forces. Think of it in terms of pliability rather than breaking bonds. Everything even iron will become pliable before it breaks. technically it does not even have to expand as such, just the molecules on the outside will be more dense than the molecules on the inside.

reply to post by rich23


"If you want to rotate the thing on the x-, y-, and z-axes at the same time, finding a way to release the bb might prove problematical. "

There is one place you could do it without it being too problematical...

In Orbit, you could terminate all contact with the rotating sphere with relative ease and much more control.

Better yet; you could spin four of them and release them all simultaneously, documenting their movement relative to one another (and the Earth) ;-)

[edit on 24-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1

Interesting...

You think anyone might have done something like that already?

reply to post by spacial


The New Scientist link was interesting. I'm not sure it supports your argument but after several attempts I still don't see what you're getting at. Sorry.

The NS link, though... that's set me off on another tangent to investigate. This thread is proving useful and interesting in unexpected ways (the best kind).

reply to post by rich23



You're basing everything you're saying on a site well-known for publishing disinformation, or rather, fake information and invented science. It's even known here on ATS if you've been here long enough, for doing that. Everything else seems to link to or copy from that site, or be equally unreliable. I can't find a reliable source of this information.

You have found no reliable source to verify that anything described here even actually happened. I can't personally replicate the experiment now.

Don't whine at me for not having time to do math for you. I do nothing but math all day and have been working nearly all day and night over the past week. I'll find and apply the formulae for the lift here when I have time, maybe, but you could just do it yourself.


The bottom line is:

1) Your source is known for publishing falsehoods and outright lies.
2) You have not replicated this experiment, or shown a real scientific paper where it has been.
3) You are whining at me for telling you that these two things make you, or rather your claims, ridiculous.


Enterprisemission is NOT a place to get something that you assume is true. It's good for entertainment, maybe.

[edit on 24-2-2009 by Johnmike]

reply to post by Johnmike


Sounds like you're the one doing the whining. You expect me to do Google searches for you, and say that although you could do the math, you don't have the time.. I put these experiments up for people to do because it might be fun.

The experiments don't depend on Hoagland. There are plenty of links in the thread that go elsewhere. You're fixating on Hoagland as though that proves your point, which it doesn't. Did Hoagland dream up the existence of Bruce DePalma? Did Hoagland invent the work of Gennady Shipov? No and no.

As I've said earlier, Hoagland is a populariser. I don't accept everything he says, but I don't throw everything away because I disagree with his views on some things. He makes some interesting connections, and I think there are some things he's right about. The idea that NASA is not open with all its data, for example, is hardly unique to Hoagland. The Ning Li thread referenced earlier in the thread shows that NASA was stalling on anti-gravity research and Dr. Li herself seems to have been "co-opted" by the DoD.

The bottom line is,

1. you're the one who's getting whiny and shouty with lots of bold text
   
2. Hoagland may be the initial source but Bruce DePalma has a tribute website, a Wiki entry and all sorts of other references
   
3. I put this up so that people would replicate the experiment. Almost no-one seems interested, funny, that
   
4. I'm not whining at you. I've suggested ways you could use your mathematical ability to contribute to the thread. And now the toys have really come out of the pram.
   

I don't have time to read through this all, but any chance the spin on the ball bearing has the same affect on its aerodynamic characteristics as a pitcher throwing a curve ball?

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 24-2-2009 by mecheng]

reply to post by Johnmike



"1) Your source is known for publishing falsehoods and outright lies."

You are correct....

...NASA are quite the dishonest bunch. ;-)

Here is an example of NASA proving that 'Never A Straight Answer' is used for a reason, when people refer to the organization:

"Don't call it antigravity research," Ron Koczor pleads. He's a physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., and he's talking about a project he's been working on for almost a decade. "Call it 'gravity modification.' 'Gravity anomalies.' Anything but antigravity. That's a red flag."

(Source for the above quote: www.slate.com...)

*He says: "Anything but antigravity. That's a red flag."

No...

*Coming up with creative vernacular to hide what you are doing from the people who continue to fund your incredulous operations - That is a Red Flag.

[edit on 24-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

Since the last few posts have been more of a smear campaign
than any enlightenment as to why or what happens in the original
poster's description of said experiment, I shall thus point out
that steel balls are a POOR choice for an experiment such as this
because of thermal effects and surface polish issues.

Platinum group metals have superior thermal expansion stability
and also make for ideal materials to create a substantially
scientific-grade nearly-perfect surface polish to limit as much
as possible any aerodynamic effects if this experiment was
performed in a gaseous or liquid environment....I did not say
that this experiment is nonsense, I merely meant to point out
that for maximum validity it SHOULD be performed in a vacuum
to REMOVE boundary layer effects which I should have stated
more clearly in my earlier post.

In atmosphere, one can SEE boundary layer effects by using
a high-speed sophisticated optical tracking system to finely
focus upon and image the balls using a thermal imager to
actually SEE the shock wave and boundary layer formation in
slow-motion within a gaseous or other fluid environment.

See Weblinks:

with formulas and photos:
www.aivela.org...

and

cat.inist.fr...

and

adsabs.harvard.edu...

and

elib.dlr.de...

The above experiments were mostly done against airfoils
(i.e. wings of aircraft) but the techniques and issues
are similar for globular-shaped objects such as
steel (or platinum) spheres.

I should mention that platinum group metals SHOULD be
used to prevent issues with off-gassing of surface materials
and coatings on steel balls and to alleviate the microscopic
gyroscopic-effects of unbalanced crystalline structures
distributed within the amorphous structure of a metal
that has Iron, Nickel, Carbon and possibly tungsten or
molybdenum in it. Like I said earlier, Steel is a poor
material to use for these experiments.

Now if this experiment WAS done in space the issues are more
complex because of the tiny but still measurable effects
of microgravity, solar wind, and even quantum effects from
the structures inherent within METALLIC materials.

I suspect what many are trying to describe here are more
the effects of gyroscopically-based micro-mechanics
within metallic materials rather than any attributable effects
of secret quantum-dynamic forces.

The problem with this experiment is that it's far too uncontrolled
to be of any scientific validity...basically one needs enough
MONEY, TIME and HIGH-RESOLUTION MEASUREMENT resources
to be applied so that such an experiment as this could be
COMPARED to others of a similar nature over a defined period
of time by OTHER researchers...ergo the Scientific Method which
includes the concept of "Repeatability"!

This experiment is not "Bad" in any sense of the word,
it just needs more scientific rigour applied so that the
results have a measure of respectability within the
scientific community and the general public.

I'm pretty sure, that if he launched the ball bearings by hand, from a drill, while one was spinning and the other stationary, that they would not have the same initial trajectory and they probably won't even be in flying in the same plane. If the trajectories were at even a slight angle to the plane of the graph, wouldn't it skew the results.

Also, the ball bearing spinning at 27000 rpm would interact with the surrounding air at least a slight amount. Like a spinning baseball or golf ball. Backspin on a baseball allows it to not drop as fast.

reply to post by rich23


You and I both agree that the act of rotation is responsible for certain anomalies occurring within the field of rotation. Here is something that may peak your interest:

Doctor De Palma's experiment with the Ball-bearings demonstrated many unique aspects of this phenomenon and while his conclusions and observations were accurate and complete - I cannot help but think that he chose to leave out certain details apurpose.

Rotation alone does not impart sufficient energy to produce these anomalies; For example, the rotating ball-bearing and the stationary other did not exhibit any of the anomalies that we would later observe after they were launched by the drill...

Another outside force is required to cause the anomaly to present itself (or be visibly observable); in the case of the ball-bearing experiment the launching mechanism imparted this required additional energy.

With this in mind, I would like to to view this short video of a German children's toy, which uses a gyroscope and powerful magnets located in the base.

Pay particular attention the gyroscope as it begins to rotate. Shortly after the gyroscope is spun, you will see that rotation alone is not sufficient to cause the anomaly and that an outside force is required to cause the expected effect to occur in a manner clearly observable without any technology ;-)

staging.i-am-bored.com...

*Notice how the rotating gyroscope does not levitate until it is lifted... In this respect, the man lifting the gyro could be analogued by the launching mechanism in De Palma's experiment - they both exert the external force that is mentioned above as being a requirement for the anomaly to be detected visually.

Also, the height of the rotating gyroscope is dependent on it's rate of rotation. It decreases as rotation slows, which begins as soon as you remove your fingers. I think then, that You could deduce what would happen if rotation were to increase....

(I'd like to see how long gyroscope would stay up if this toy was in a vacuum - if it was chilled to the temperature of space, it would also become a superconductor... Wouldn't that be neat)

Edit:
For reference, Here is a picture of the levitating Gyroscope toy - the Levitron ;0)

(Image Courtesy of OtherLand Toys)

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


The toy is a demonstration of magnetic repulsion. The base is a permanent magnet. The gyroscope contains a magnet. Gyroscopic forces, also known as angular momentum, prevent the gyro from flipping over so the north-north orientation is maintained and the repulsion keeps the gyro "levitated". Without the magnets nothing happens. The spin of the gyro has nothing to do with the levitation, it just keeps the smaller magnet stable.


[edit on 2/26/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


"The spin of the gyro has nothing to do with the levitation, it just keeps the smaller magnet stable."

Sure...

The gyro just won't levitate if it isn't spinning - But as you say, that is just a stability issue.

However when it is spinning, it's height will decrease as it's rotation slows...
This is what the OP and myself are interested in - but you already knew that.

Isn't this toy a neat demonstration of magnetic repulsion?

"Without the magnets nothing happens"

Yeah, that's the whole point - it is a Magnetic Toy ;-)

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Exuberant1]