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: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+6 more 
posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:38 PM
I've been looking into Richard Hoagland's notion of Hyperdimensional Physics lately. It's interesting because it explains quite a few phenomena (sunspot cycles, the Great Spots on Jupiter and Neptune, to give just two examples) that our current paradigm struggles with somewhat.

And I came across two experiments that anyone can do, that would be a great project for a science class, and that produce results that seem to violate the laws of physics as we know them and suggest that there's something else going on we haven't yet fully understood.

These experiments are both to do with rotation and angular momentum.

The first experiment is really simple.


  • two ball bearings of identical size and weight
  • an electric drill (modified as described)
  • some sort of stroboscopic camera

Modify the electric drill so that it provides a cup which rotates to hold one ball bearing, and another cup, mounted on the (non-rotating) body of the drill to hold the other ball bearing.

Set up the camera to capture what follows. It might be an idea to perform the experiment in front of a wall that you've marked with a grid of known dimensions, for reasons which will become apparent.

If you can arrange it so that each ball bearing is a slightly different colour, that would also be useful.

Place one ball bearing in each cup. Spin the drill up so that the ball-bearing in the cup is rotating as fast as you can make it go, and stand in front of the gridded wall.

Project the drill vertically upwards so that the ball bearings fly out of their respective holders. Use the stroboscopic camera and the gridded wall to track their respective trajectories as accurately as possible.

According to the late Dr. Bruce DePalma (brother of the rather more famous film director Brian), the rotating ball-bearing will follow a markedly different trajectory - flying higher and falling more slowly than its twin.

This is, put crudely, an antigravity effect arising from angular momentum interaction with the so-called torsion field, or, if you like, Maxwellian ether. For the full story I'd recommend starting with this page but you need to keep reading to get to part 2 where DePalma starts to figure quite largely.

He seems like a really cool guy and seems, like so many others involved in the "alternative physics" arena, to have met an untimely death.

He also had another intriguing experiment which is linked here. However, as so many of these kinds of links disappear in a way I find rather suspicious, I'll give as much detail as I can.

Again, the crucial thing is rotating an object to build up its angular momentum. The more massive the object and the faster it spins, the higher the angular momentum.

But according to this experiment, strange effects occur from the simple act of spinning something at high speeds. Rather than reinterpret the experiment, I'll cite the relevant part of the link I posted above:

In terms of the acceptance of a new body of information relating to the properties of rotating objects and variable inertia, a simple experiment has to be devised which clearly demonstrates the new phenomena. In the performance of experiments with large rotating flywheels, there are great experimental difficulties which result from experimenting on the large rotating flywheels themselves. Through a series of corroborating experiments it has been established that the anisotropic inertial properties of a rotating object are conferred on the space around the object. That is to say the space around a rotating object will have conferred upon it an inertial anisotropy. Let us ascribe this to the setting up of an od field through rotation of a real physical object. The purpose of the experiment to be described is the determination of one of the properties of an od field. The anisotropic inertia property.

The Experiment: A good way to detect a field whose effect is a spatial inertial anisotropy is to use a time measurement based on an inertial property of space and compare it to a remote reference. With reference to figure ( 1 ) we have a situation where the timekeeping rate of an Accutron tuning fork regulated wrist watch is compared to that of an ordinary electric clock with a synchronous sweep second hand.

The Accutron timepiece is specified to be accurate to one minute a month. Examination of the relative time drift of the Accutron - electric clock combination shows a cumulative drift of .25 second Accutron ahead for 4 hours of steady state operation. This is within the specification of the watch.

Figure 1 -- (see hyperlink below)

With the flywheel spinning at 7600 r.p.m. and run steadily for 1000 seconds (17 minutes), the Accutron loses .9 second relative to the electric clock.

I thought I'd post the diagram in case the hyperlink goes down...

Obviously setting up the clock and watch and timing their divergence several times before conducting the experiment, to establish beyond doubt a consistent pattern of divergence between the two tomekeepers, would be very important: that way you have a proper baseline against which to measure any discrepancy introduced by spinning up the flywheel.

It seems as though the choice of a "tuning fork-driven" watch is important. Would other kinds of watches produce different results? What about an ordinary mechanical timepiece?

I'm sure that many people here understand that these experiments feed directly into applications to do with free energy and antigravity: I think they would be ideal school science projects that would really mess with teachers' heads.


Edited, firstly to put up the diagram from the hyperlink and then to correct a misinterpretation I'd made about the relative speeds of the two ball bearings.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by rich23]

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by rich23

I would like to try this.......what is a practical way to measure the speeds of the ball bearings.

Maybe I missed it...I will read this again.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 09:31 PM
Ho hooooooo rich23 and all ! !

You will have a lot of fun reading this, too :
Von Braun’s 50-Year-Old Secret
It's the story of a satellite being late ! !
and the anti-gravity effect of gyroscopes.
And the effect of the effect on satellites, obviously ! B-)

Also, The divine cosmos. ( no religion here ).
It shows the hidden geometry that is everywhere in the universe.

Blue skies.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 09:36 PM
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.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by rich23

That would be a really good experiment but it really has to be done in a vacuum to know if the results are correct or not. So it isn't quite such a simple experiment, depending on how difficult it is to form a good enough vacuum.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:37 PM
what happens if you change the spin of the ball from clockwise to counterclockwise, are the results the same?

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:15 PM
That graph can't be used to compare the trajectories because they are coming from different positions of origination. I digitized some vector lines on top of the graph here:

The yellow line is the non-spinning ball path, and the red line is the ball that is spinning. The look different, but it's difficult to compare because their point or origination isn't the same (either lower left or right, can't tell).

Since we can't know where the point of origination is, our other option is to overlay the lines so that at least their apex's are centered on one another:

Now we get a clearer picture of what's going on, sort of. Both paths appear somewhat parallel on the left hand side eventually coming together, but then the paths separate from each other after the apex, just a bit. All this tells us, since the lines were adjusted manually to center on apex, is that paths are not identical.

This could seem to suggest that the spin is having an effect on the ball. However, it could also (more likely) be caused by a different higher initial velocity for the red ball. With out the actual data, it's impossible to know, and the graph doesn't illustrate any useful information concerning total path (we don't know where they started, we don't know where they stopped, we don't know the distance covered.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:35 AM
At first I was thinking it would be due to the airflow around the ball bearings.

The effect of airflow is marked on spherical objects (and of course aerofoil shapes). Has anyone ever done the experiment with a ping pong ball?(Blow air out of your mouth while looking up - the ping pong ball raises up and sits inside the airflow).

However, I think due to the large bass of the bearings, it would take a large and sustained relative airspeed to have any measurable effect. The OP's experiment seems not to provide enough flight time for this.

Once you discount airflow, what does that leave in terms of known physics?

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by harrytuttle

Bruce De Palma Published his findings years ago.

The same debunking methods you are using didn't work then when we peer-reviewed his work.

I suggest you spend more time reading his conclusions and less time trying to debunk reality.

You did bother read De Palma's Paper didn't you?
(Surely you are not relying on the OP...)

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 01:39 AM
The effect you see is caused by the fact that the gyro effect makes the bearing "want" to stay in a straight trajectory.

Of course it doesn't now, but you can see it's effect on the "slower" curved path.

In short: The rotational momentum / gyro effect of the spinning bearing causes it to "turn" down towards earth just *slightly* slower than the non rotating bearing.

The effect itself does not cause "anti gravity" it just forces it to stay on it's path a few % longer. But it does not equal to upwards thrust or lack of gravitational pull towards earth.. there you go.

For those of you who say "yeah but then where does the upwards force that holds the bearing in air longer come from?"

answer: That "force" or energy rather, comes from the (loss of) rotational momentum. I.e, the bearing "spends" rotational momentum energy to bend the trajectory, at which it also loses that rotational energy.. energy is transformed.

Hope my explanation isn't to hard to understand!


[edit on 23-2-2009 by Wuushu]

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Wuushu]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:03 AM
reply to post by Wuushu

"The effect itself does not cause "anti gravity" it just forces it to stay on it's path a few % longer. But it does not equal to upwards thrust or lack of gravitational pull towards earth.."

De Palma's experiment only used one 'axis' - the same one for both experiments in the OP...

...But since the hypothesis required that the plane of rotation to be parallel to the ground, I guess we can forgive him this time around. ;-)

I always wondered to which degree the results in the ball-bearing experiment would have differed if De Palma had decided to rotate the mass on all three axis before launching.

His experiments have been replicated; I shall attempt to find a modified version that accesses multiple axis. (I'll find and post one after my nap.)

"What is an opposing force of gravity? - Levity...."

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:00 AM
Thank you, Exuberant1 - out of all the posters here you clearly understand what's going on.

Others haven't read the links properly - even CJean, who posted links to pages I'd already linked.

The information is all there, people. Stop thinking in conventional terms. This is something mainstream physics has ignored for decades, and these are experiments anyone can do. I can think of plenty of variations to get additional data for each one, but I'm not going to do everyone's thinking for them. I've just put this up here because it seems important that people should be able to duplicate this work.

And why the laminar flow around the rotating ball-bearing should translate into lift is quite beyond me. A ball bearing is not a frisbee. Both experiments are based on the same principle - what Hoagland calls a "hyperdimensional" interaction derived from angular momentum. A spinning object interacts with the local torsion field to produce results which anyone can replicate.

If you read ALL the material I've posted you'll have a better chance of understanding what's going on here.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:05 AM
reply to post by harrytuttle

If you look at the original photograph, you'll note that the spinning ball bearing actually falls slower than the other one. This is quite clearly visible because the stroboscopic images come at the same interval, and the last few show the control travelling further than the spinning bearing. You can see this very easily against the grid background.

Care to explain that?

As both the ball-bearings were released at the same time, and as both were subjected to the same upward force, this is something of an anomaly in terms of classical physics. The fact that they may have started their upward flight separated by a couple of inches should have no effect whatsoever.

By removing the data points and concentrating on the arcs, you actually remove some of the most useful data. Nice one.

The bearings were released at the same time. The strobe photograph tracks the trajectories simultaneously. You might note that the origination points are separated horizontally by less than 1 grid unit, but then the apices are separated by more than that, and the final datapoints by, again, less than 1 grid unit.

The two objects were subjected to the same upward force and released at the same time. Therefore they should be falling at the same rate by the last shot of the photograph, yet you can clearly see that the rotating ball falls by less than two grid units, while the control ball falls by more than two grid units. It's falling faster. Why?

[edit on 23-2-2009 by rich23]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:23 AM

it is a long read but it is definetly worth it.

the most surprising is (if it is really so), that the whole "problem" was hidden via some "political" decision. I know few scientists and as I see them they would never stop with its researches only cause they were asked for.

while they work for official institutions they can be stoped. but there are many others working for privetly founded institutions. I will not even mention that the foreign agencies would not care that US wants to cover it all up and would continue with the works on it.

but as I always say, everything is possible. and this looks to have a solid bachground and pretty astonishing evidence. I wish only to understand it better and get a chance to evaluate by myself.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
"What is an opposing force of gravity? - Levity...."

Out of all your posts I think that's my favourite line so far.

I'm slightly boggled by the thought of rotating a mass on 3 axes. I didn't know DePalma's experiments had been replicated. If you know more, please post.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:40 AM
reply to post by rich23

I'm not a Physist unlike Richard Hoagland, but I think he's re-discovered
resonance and centrifical forces.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:51 AM

Originally posted by skeptic_al

I'm not a Physist unlike Richard Hoagland, but I think he's re-discovered
resonance and centrifical forces.

Ouch the spelling.

I agree here. Hate to debunk someone's sincere scientific efforts, but the
explanation of the difference here are not exactly breakthrough.

Mike F

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Exuberant1

You did bother read De Palma's Paper didn't you?
(Surely you are not relying on the OP...)


As I've pointed out, people aren't even reading everything I put up.

With any luck, your comment above is encouraging people to do their own research rather than a dig at my lack of understanding. I freely admit, I'm new to this. The point of this thread - and this is addressed, not so much to you, as to other readers, is that

these are experiments anyone can do that show that classical mechanics falls apart abruptly when you start to factor in angular momentum.

People accept what they're taught so readily and completely, and scientists are apt to conflate observations with laws (the laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics) and what this means is that it becomes difficult for people to conceive of circumstances in which these observations might no longer obtain. Because then you'd be breaking a law, a law of the universe.

That whole way of thinking is a crock, imo.

I've since found a webpage devoted to his work which I'm still ploughing through. Was there any particular paper that you meant? Please do link the one you mean.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by rich23]

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:09 AM

Originally posted by whiteraven
reply to post by rich23

I would like to try this.......what is a practical way to measure the speeds of the ball bearings.

Maybe I missed it...I will read this again.

I wasn't going to reply to this due to

  1. your laziness (why should I think for you, especially about something so obvious?)
  2. my laziness (ditto)
  3. the distinct possibility that I could make a mistake and make a fool of myself (the most important consideration, obviously)

... but what the hell.

You know the interval of the strobe flashes. In the photograph shown, it's 1/60th of a second. If you then measure the distance each ball travels, you can work out the speed for that 1/60th of a second.

Assuming g=9.81m/s2, you should be able to work out the size of the grid from looking at the path of the control bearing. From that, you should be able to work out the relative acceleration of the other bearing and see if it matches g. Doesn't look like it to me.

I'm not a mathematician. I've just put this stuff up there. Have at it.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:15 AM
More might be revealed if we had a measure of the comparitive forces required to accelerate both the spinning and stationary balls to the same vertical velocity. Those figures, I feel, would show what's really being demonstrated here IE implied inertia from angular momentum or the same principle we see exploited in gyroscopes

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in