It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 74
39
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Magnus effect

How is this expressed in an equation?
There's an equation in that link, isn't that the one you're looking for?

You're saying this explains it all and leaves nothing unrepresented?

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:29 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

So this device gets its energy from "hidden bidirectional Whittaker/Ziolkowski waves". Too bad those waves are so well hidden though. The concept could work if it would just tap into frequency bands that are known to be in use (UHF is pretty crowded). In fact, this device does just that:

en.wikipedia.org...

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Magnus effect

How is this expressed in an equation?
There's an equation in that link, isn't that the one you're looking for?

You're saying this explains it all and leaves nothing unrepresented?

I would say no, because you need to understand the context of the equation, which is what the rest of the article explains. But if you know the context already, yes it explains it all. Vector notation is elegant like that.

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN

The turning point in DePalma's scientific career came while he was a lecturer at MIT in the late 1960's and he began pondering the inadequacies of explaining the physics of the gyroscope and he began wondering if there was a deeper principle operating in the behavior of rotating objects.

One of the first experiments that DePalma did in this area was to test to see if there is a difference in the gravitational behavior of a spinning vs non-spinning ball bearing. After an extensive literature search prompted by a question from one of his students at MIT, they could not find any evidence that this experiment had ever been done and so it became an educational exercise to see if in fact this variation on Galileo's "big rock vs. small rock" experiment would show any variation in the rate of fall.

At that time Bruce was a senior scientist specializing in photographic sciences with the Polaroid Corporation and lecturing part time at MIT on photographic science, physics, and electrical engineering over a period of several years in the late 1960's. He set up this experiment using two one-inch diameter pinball machine ball bearings where one was not spinning and one was made to spin at 18,000 rpm by a hand held router motor with cups to hold the balls, one on the spinning shaft and one affixed to the casing of the motor. He then he gave the assembly a thrust at an appropriate angle and in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light and open camera lens he photographed the parallel trajectories of the two ball bearings. Repeating this numerous times and analyzing the photographs, this experiment showed that there is indeed a variation in the gravitational behavior of the spinning vs non-spinning ball bearing. The spinning ball, given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster and hit the bottom of the trajectory before the non-spinning ball. Later he made a device with a magnetic release which could test this small but significant, reproducible, and clearly visually perceptible effect with a stationary vertical drop over a height of just six feet.

After years of reflection on these results he wrote an evaluation on 3 May 1977 called "Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment"

The essence of this experiment was duplicated with another setup using spinning vs non-spinning enclosed gyroscopes to control for aerodynamic factors and these results are posted in "GYRO DROP EXPERIMENT" Performed by Kenneth Gerber, M.D., Richard F. Merritt, Analysis by Edward Delvers.

An overview of some of these rotational anomalies is discussed in DePalma's 4 November 1974 "Fundamental Discoveries of the New Physics and Mathematics and their Relationship to the UFO Flying Saucer Observations and Encounters"

"1) Rotating objects falling in a gravitational field are accelerated at a rate greater than "G", the commonly accepted rate for non-rotating objects falling in a vacuum.

2) Pendula utilizing bob weights which are rotating, swing nonsinusoidally with periods increased over those of pendula with non-rotating bobs.

3) A precessing gyroscope has an anomalous inertial mass, greater than its gravitational mass.

4) An anomalous field phenomenon has been discovered, the OD field, which confers inertia on objects immersed within it. This field is generated by the constrained forced precession of a rotating gyroscope."

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:29 AM

Originally posted by 547000
I would say no, because you need to understand the context of the equation, which is what the rest of the article explains. But if you know the context already, yes it explains it all. Vector notation is elegant like that.
I agree with 547000, that's the whole equation. The context of the terms in the equation is needed and that's also in the link.

That's the Magnus effect which would affect the steel balls Hoagland talked about in the video.

The sports balls I talked about are more complicated because they often have asymmetrical surfaces "as seen by" the airflow, so other factors can also affect their trajectory. Sports ball science gets more complicated than just the Magnus effect (also see the cool photos of the airflow in this link):
Materials and science in sports (pdf)

In the late 19th century, Lord Rayleigh credited the German scientist, Gustav Magnus, with the first true explanation of this effect and it has since been universally known as the Magnus effect. This was all before the introduction of the boundary layer concept by Ludwig Prandtl in 1904. It was soon recognized that the aerodynamics of sports balls was strongly dependent on the detailed development and behavior of the boundary layer on the ball's surface.

A side force, which makes a ball swing through the air, can also be generated in the absence of the Magnus effect. In one of the cricket deliveries, the ball is released with the seam angled, which creates the boundary layer asymmetry necessary to produce swing. In baseball, volleyball and soccer there is an interesting variation whereby the ball is released without any spin imparted to it. In this case, depending on the seam or stitch orientation, an asymmetric, and sometimes time-varying, flow field can be generated, thus resulting in an unpredictable flight path.
Since I did compare the steel balls Hoagland talked about to sports balls, I felt I should point out that sports balls are subject to additional effects because their surface isn't as smooth as a steel ball.

If the surface of the steel ball wasn't smooth, but was made to, say, duplicate the stitch lines of a baseball, then the boundary layer effect could also become significant on the steel ball, in addition to the Magnus effect.

But if the surface of the steel ball is smooth, then I think the effects related to non-uniform surfaces like stitching, etc become insignificant, and the Magnus effect is about all that's left.
edit on 27-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:21 AM
Is it not true that classical physics texts are always referring to non-rotating objects?

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Yes (if by most you mean freshman physics), probably because most introductory classical mechanics texts are about inertial reference frames, and rotational motion is an accelerated frame. But the dynamics of accelerating frames have also been studied.
edit on 27-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:27 AM
double post
edit on 27-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:29 AM

What texts cover this?

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:34 AM

And are accelerating frames dynamics encompassed by Newton's laws?

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Almost any non-introductory book on dynamics should cover it. Here for example.

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

And are accelerating frames dynamics encompassed by Newton's laws?

I don't think so. I think it only works for inertial reference frames, but I might be wrong here. But non-inertial reference frames have been studied.
edit on 27-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is it not true that classical physics texts are always referring to non-rotating objects?

Oh wait, no, that is false. Most freshman books don't cover rotating frames of reference, not rotating objects. There is a distinction. A rotating object does not need to be studied in a rotating frame of reference.
edit on 27-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by Mary Rose

And are accelerating frames dynamics encompassed by Newton's laws?

I don't think so. I think it only works for inertial reference frames, but I might be wrong here. But non-inertial reference frames have been studied.
edit on 27-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

Accelerating frames are covered by Newton's laws in the sense that the problem can be solved by switching to an intertial frame, look at this link under "avoiding":

en.wikipedia.org...

The essence of Newton's laws, however, are deeper than just simple math to cover mechanics. These law observe the symmetries that apparently exist in nature. For example, translational symmetry of space manifests itself as conservation of momentum.

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:02 PM
This is from Bearden's "THE FINAL SECRET OF FREE ENERGY" written in 1993:

Nearly everything fundamental that we've been taught about EM energy is wrong or incomplete. Even the definition of energy in physics is wrong! Let me summarize a few of the things that are wrong with the classical electromagnetics (CEM) model as follows:

CEM is still utilizing a model based on a material ether. Although the Michelson-Morley experiment destroyed the material ether assumption in 1887, the classical EM model has never been corrected. It also contains no definition of charge, and no definition of potential. In many cases, algorithms to calculate a magnitude are boldfacedly and erroneously advanced as "definitions." CEM still prescribes the force fields as the causes of all EM phenomena; it has been known since 1959 that forces are effects and not causes, that EM force fields exist only in and on the charged particles of mass in the physical system, and that the potentials are the primary causes of EM phenomena. The lack of definitive definitions of mass and force in mechanics is carried over into EM theory; there is no adequate definition of EM force or of EM mass. The magnitude of the electrical charge on an electron is not quantized. Instead, it is discretized, being a function of the magnitude of the virtual photon flux (VPF) exchange between the vacuum and the charged particle. When the charged particle is placed in a potential that differs from ambient, then the magnitude of the VPF -- and hence the magnitude of the electric charge on the electron -- is altered. The CEM assumption of an "empty vacuum" is totally falsified by modern quantum mechanics. The CEM notion that EM force fields and force field waves exist in vacuum is totally false. Only potentials and potential gradients exist in the vacuum. EM waves in vacuum are not force field waves as CEM prescribes; instead, they are oscillations of potentials and potential gradients. Potentials have a bidirectional EM wave-pair structure, where the bidirectional wave pairs are phaselocked in a harmonic series. In each wave pair, photons and antiphotons are continually coupling (into spin-2 gravitons) and decoupling. This is where gravitation and electromagnetics are unified. The CEM notion that singular EM forces exist in either matter or the vacuum is false; Newton's third law requires that all forces exist in oppositive pairs. Not a single one of the equations universally taught as "Maxwell's equations" ever appeared in any book or paper by James Clerk Maxwell; instead, they are Oliver Heaviside's equations. Maxwell's actual theory was written in quaternions, which is a complete system of mathematics. The Heaviside/Gibbs vector version

1) has a lower topology,

(2) is not a complete system of mathematics, and

(3) actually captured only a subset of Maxwell's actual theory.

Tensor theory does not recapture that which was lost.

There are even more errors in CEM, but these should suffice to make the point: Classical electromagnetics theory is seriously flawed, with archaic foundations, riddled with errors, and it should be completely redone. Until this revamping of CEM is accomplished, the present model solidly blocks free energy, antigravity, a unified physical field theory, and a unified theory of mind and matter interaction.

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Bearden makes things up as he goes about his bloviating about E&M. He makes a series of statements that are patently false, and of course Mary you have no clue as usual -- albeit compelled to post stuff you have no clue about.

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This is from Bearden's "THE FINAL SECRET OF FREE ENERGY" written in 1993:

Conclusion

. . . We've had this electromagnetics around for over 100 years -- Maxwell's book was published in 1873. We got it wrong, starting right with Maxwell and his use of the material ether, which was almost universally assumed at the time. Still, by using quaternions, Maxwell succeeded in packing a great deal more in the model than even he himself recognized. When the vector aspects interacted to form a zero resultant translationally, those active interactants were still in there and still fighting and interacting. The scalar component of the quaternion remained, and infolded those struggling vectors and functions of them inside itself. In short, it captured the case where the electromagnetic energies are involved in translation actions which nullify each other translationally (electromagnetically). However, the energies are still in there in the continuing interactants inside the zero vector resultant. As such, they are trapped EM energy. And it is the trapped EM energy inside a mass -- not the mass per se -- which is responsible for gravitation. In other words, Maxwell's theory already correctly captured the unification of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field in 1873.

Then Heaviside et al forced Maxwell's theory into a vector framework, throwing out the scalar component, and discarding the unification of gravitation and electromagnetics along with it. Serious errors were made and still exist in many of the fundamental definitions; in fact, many of them aren't definitions at all. Nearly every engineer and physicist can readily calculate potentials -- all, of course, on the "dissipation" side where the potentials are actually the amount of potential that was collected upon a collector and then dissipated. I could find hardly a single physicist who really knew what a scalar potential was prior to a finite amount being collected and dissipated as voltage. Yet 99% of them firmly believed they understood the potential. . . .

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:23 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
albeit compelled to post stuff you have no clue about.

You haven't impressed me with your knowledge.

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

And are accelerating frames dynamics encompassed by Newton's laws?
Newton's Laws very definitely cover accelerating frames.

When the laws are reduced to the straightforward co-ordinate geometry equations that are encountered in elementary classical mechanics, they are formulated for inertial (non-accelerating) frames. But that's just a way of formulating Newton's Laws for the most basic situations.

As Buddhasystem says, systems viewed from an accelerating frame can be treated by understanding the nature of co-ordinate transformations between inertial and accelerating frames.

The whole of non-relativistic classical mechanics is encompassed entirely by Newton's Laws. You can do what you like with your frame – accelerate it, spin it, launch it into orbit, whatever you like – so long as you're well below the speed of light and not looking at the detail of quantum systems.

There are some stunningly beautiful ways of formulating and generalising classical mechanics, such as the action principle, and others by Hamilton and Poisson.

As Buddhasystem says, much deeper significances of the laws of Newtonian physics have been uncovered over the last century or so, notably by the genius of Emmy Noether, and later by Dirac who showed that the Poisson formulation of classical mechanics is in fact grounded deep in quantum theory, and by Feynman who showed that the action principle is a deep consequence of quantum field theory.

Newton's Laws aren't decreed randomly from on high – every single bit of it arises naturally and magnificently from the precise logic of the quantum.

I find the whole story of mechanics extraordinarily beautiful. And it works, dude.

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:30 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Whereas Bearden is full of sh1t.
Some people prefer it that way.

new topics

top topics

39