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.

 

Yo-Yo Factory Breaks Anti-Grav Tech?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
They are much more believable because they are known to exist (and I have seen them in action), while anti-gravity as yet to even be proved as possible (I think).

Good point, although it's possible that you've just seen anti grav tech proved to exist.

And why apply it to a horizontal yo-yo? Why don't we see the "anti-gravity" yo-yo on its more common position?

Good questions. Unfortunately, as I'm not privy to how this tech works, I can't answer them.

I think that not showing it would be a better way of keeping it hidden.

Ah, but all good conspiracists know that the best place to hide things is in plain sight.

It's possible that those experiments were done without any extra expenditure, on the astronaut's free time.

If NASA hadn't made it an official program (Toys in Space), I might be inclined to agree with you. Regardless, as you said, your suggestion is just a "possibility", not fact.

I think that's possible. We are used to many things and we do not even think why or how they work, so seeing how things act in a low gravity environment is a good way of seeing how other, more difficult to test, things would behave.

Good point. After all, a yo-yo is much easier to test than...well, something a lot bigger that works like a yo-yo, like...um...gee, I can't think of anything that fits there.

What reversed engineered technology?

Well, this anti gravity tech had to come from somewhere, and, as you pointed out, anti grav isn't something we've seen on a regular basis. I think it quite possible that this technology was obtained from retrieved alien tech, as so many other, more common, things are claimed to be.




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
Good point. After all, a yo-yo is much easier to test than...well, something a lot bigger that works like a yo-yo, like...um...gee, I can't think of anything that fits there.
One thing we know they tried was tethered satellites, and they behave in a way that is not that far from the way a yo-yo that does not "sleep" acts (without going back).

It also shows that some things that we take for granted cannot work without gravity or will work in a less than optimal way with a low gravity.

Things like cranes, for example, cannot work without gravity.


Well, this anti gravity tech had to come from somewhere, and, as you pointed out, anti grav isn't something we've seen on a regular basis. I think it quite possible that this technology was obtained from retrieved alien tech, as so many other, more common, things are claimed to be.
I think it's easier to make the discovery than reverse-engineer something from a different civilization.

Have you ever reverse-engineered anything?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
One thing we know they tried was tethered satellites, and they behave in a way that is not that far from the way a yo-yo that does not "sleep" acts (without going back).

I don't know how familiar you are with yo-yos, but a yo-yo that doesn't sleep only does one thing, and that's to come back. Just because something's on a string doesn't mean it acts like a yo-yo.

It also shows that some things that we take for granted cannot work without gravity or will work in a less than optimal way with a low gravity.

Things like cranes, for example, cannot work without gravity.

Without gravity, there'd be no need for cranes. We'd be able to just move the load by ourselves.

I think it's easier to make the discovery than reverse-engineer something from a different civilization.

Have you ever reverse-engineered anything?

No, I can't say I've reverse engineered anything. Just out of curiosity, have you ever made a discovery that wasn't reverse engineered? It is, after all, easier...

You make good points, and ask good questions. However, neither you nor anyone else has yet to show any of the information I've presented as false. Until such time, I think we have to accept the possibility that my conclusions just might be right.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
Thanks for the replies! You never know, this could be the next world shaking event (not HAARP related!)

Some pretty reasonable theories have been brought up, but of course, until confirmed, they're just that, theories. Most, like magnets, air, and the like, have been denied by those involved. I believe, though, that this is just to protect themselves and their loved ones. If you deny everything, no-one can accuse you of making claims of any kind of advanced tech. They can just say "we never said that".

I can say, though, as far as the yo-yo shooting air out from itself, that I own a lot of yo-yos, including some Yo-Yo Factory ones, and none of them create enough of an air flow to levitate itself with.


You may have been right on your 1st assertion. In 2005 two austrians submitted a patent for an antigravity machine. Although the device worked, the patent was not granted because the inventors could not explain the mechanism.

It used a high rpm disc (non ferrous) spinning in a horizontal plane with magnets attached to the edges spinning in a vertical plane lime propellers.

NASA released a photo and a one paragraph blurb on their antigravity machine this year. Though it did not include specifics, it showed a disc spinning on a horizontal plane. Not only did it create antigravity waves, it lowered the temp in the room considerably.

Maurice Cotterell describes the mechanism of antigravity in his new book "Future Science." Unlike other electromagnetic waves that have a sine-wave shape, gravity produces a corkscrew wave due to vertically spinning electrons traveling around a horizontal orbit.

Just like spinning corkscrews, interference of the waves attracts items of lower mass to items of higher mass. In an environment lacking friction or repelling forces, mass is attracted to mass. The reason gravitational force decreases by the inverse square of distance is due to the decreasing likelihood of interference patterns as an object moves further away from other objects.

It doesn't take much of an imagination to see how this force could be weaponized to bring down a building. Just saying.

What I find ironic is many persons first exposure to this tech, assuming of course the Rootbeer Float is not a sight gag, is a harmless child's toy not an antimatter device capable of breaking gravitational bonds between molecules and turning, let's say concrete into dust and bending steel girders like licorice. Just saying



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 

Finally! Someone who can see beyond the programming by today's education system, conventional physics, and the MSM.

I think that the high rotation of a modern yo-yo (some have been clocked at over 100,000 rpms) could easily be used to power such technology, and I'm glad to see that others have already investigated the possibility.

When you start to connect the dots, from Mr Matusow's "stringless" yo-yo, through the NASA tests, up to the levitating yo-yo video, I believe that the conclusions are obvious. At least to the open-minded, non-sheep of the species.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
When you start to connect the dots, from Mr Matusow's "stringless" yo-yo, through the NASA tests, up to the levitating yo-yo video, I believe that the conclusions are obvious.
The problem is that there are many ways of connecting the dots, but only one is the right one.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Very true. I've said the same thing here many times over the years. Oddly enough, no-one ever responded when I pointed that out.


Of course, the kicker is, who's to say I didn't connect them correctly? Only those involved know for sure, and they don't seem to be talking. Admittedely, it seems a bit far fetched, but is it any more unlikely than many of the conspiracies discussed here every day? The facts that my theory is based on are actual facts, and my qoutes are taken, I think, in context. The yo-yo in the video is floating. Nasa did study the effects of reduced gravity on yo-yos. Mr Matusow did have certain unsavory connections, and is credited with inventing a stringless yo-yo. These facts seem to be incontrovertable, as far as I can tell. A much more solid basis than many conspiracies believed by many people.

Until I can be shown wrong, I maintain that I have connected the dots correctly.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


The same happens to me (and I suppose that it happens to everyone), I think I have joined the dots in the correct way: A yo-yo with that shape and on that position can be easily lifted by compressed air; there's nothing in NASA's study of the yo-yo that looks like they were looking at anti-gravity, and there isn't any reference to an anti-gravity yo-yo made by Mr. Matusow.

It's possible that neither one of us has to right connection or even that joining our two ways of connecting the dots we can get the right connections, but, as you said, only the ones involved know the real connections.

PS: I forgot to answer your question about discoveries versus reverse-engineering. I have, more than once, created ways of solving problems that replicate previous work by other people, work that I didn't know at the time. The first time that happened was when I needed to compress data for a program I was making. I finally got to a compression scheme that I found later was almost the same as the one used on .zip files. I don't know if we can see it as a real discovery, but that's why I think it's easier to reach some conclusion or discovery while doing our own work than reverse-engineer it from someone else's work.

That and the fact that I have reverse-engineered at least two programs made by someone else.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Great trick and seem highly engineered Yo yo's

The principle is the same as why a Frisbee flies.

The only difference being when throwing a Frisbee as well as the centrifugal force, the spin around the centre axis you have velocity/acceleration applied in the direction/vector of the throw.

When he spins the yo yo initially ALL of the force is located on the axis of the centre of gravity.

A Frisbee could be spun in the same way with the right apparatus and would just hover the same as well.

Frisbee helicopter pilot applies pitch to the blades.

Yo Yo as above no pitch all force down and cantered.

Kind Regards,

Elf

edit on 25-5-2011 by MischeviousElf because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2011 by MischeviousElf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Although I can see your points, I still maintain that there is something else going on here. Naturally, I won't try to force you to see the issue as I do, nor will I start the ever popular cry of "disinformation/paid shill". That would get us nowhere. I suppose we'll have to agree do disagree on this issue until I can unearth more evidence. I shall continue to investigate.

Also, kudos on your "discoveries", even if someone else had discovered them first. Nice work.


edit on 25-5-2011 by subject x because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 

Sorry, but no. A frisbee needs forward momentum to stay airborne, with the rotational aspect more of an element towards stability. A basic explanation of how a frisbee flies can be found here. Essentially, it flies by the principles of the Bernoulli effect combined with aerodynamic lift.

Additionally, I have in my possession the same type of yo-yo as seen in the video (minus the anti-grav tech, of course). When I try to duplicete the video, the yo-yo promptly falls to the floor. So we can see that just the rotation of the yo-yo in no way creates sufficient lift to allow it to hover in and of itself.

Thanks for the reply, though. I think many minds will be needed to sort this puzzle out.



edit on 25-5-2011 by subject x because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


Im sorry but FAIL

You may have one, maybe check the weight/mass or spin it more?

The Effect you mention is more suitable to wings or objects that have an Velocity or Vector through an Fluid or Air, where as well as the Cetrifugual force applied (the spin), torgue is also applied to the sytsem, so therefore as stated frisbee effect the direction of throw/release Helicopter pitch of baldes.

Please see the below for more examples of what I am trying to show.

this is not anti gravity,

This is simple greek and newtonian mechanics math:

Fc = mv2/r, where Fc = centrifugal force, m = mass, v = speed, and r = radius.


Proof here


Kind Regards,

Elf
edit on 25-5-2011 by MischeviousElf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by morkington
 


If is floating on forced air wouldnt it go up, not down, since the hand passing underneath would be a closer object to propel from?

edit on 25-5-2011 by Wetpaint72 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 

Sorry, but I see nothing at your link to suggest that it has anything to do with making/keeping something airborne. Perhaps you could clarify?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Im trying to figure out if you are just trolling us or if you really believe what you're saying.
This is not "antigravity"..
and no I'm not a "brainwashed sheep" like most of society.

Seriously..
You fail big time.





posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahmose
 


and just for clarity..
I'm sure anti-gravity has already been worked out and implemented (ie, it exists) ...
but you're not seeing it in this yo-yo. lol



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wetpaint72
 


No, if the forced air is being projected from below onto the yo-yo.

In a situation like that, a hand passing bellow the yo-yo would be between the yo-yo and the forced air, so, without that force, the yo-yo starts to to fall.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Apparently, it can be done with other objects.

With a screwdriver:


With a role of tape:


Or maybe they are connected to some secret NASA project.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Interesting. Being that the yo-yo vid has music on it, it'll be hard to rule out the air gun theory. (Things people figure out when they have too much time on their hands.)

I still wouldn't rule out the magnets theory either. The magnet in this case may even be just a strong permanent magnet. The reason no fancy A/C electromagnet is needed is because the fact that the yo-yo is spinning is what produces the eddy current and it's counter EMF. The aluminum doesn't even have to be cold. Once you hit the right RPMs, it'll levitate in the presence of a magnetic field. I believe this is the principle the toy called the Levitron operates on, as well as some types of magnetic bearings.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Cool vids! I dig the "roll of tape" one.
I just want to note that in both of those videos, they have to hold the air chuck really close to the object, so you can see it. You see no air chuck in the yo-yo vid. Just sayin...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join