Truely universal time and distance
- Thread starter Dooby
- Start date
Do we have to I really wanted to talk about startling new
evidence of extensive ET ruins
Your right, after all a theory of gravity form a guy who lives in the woods who calls himself Gandalf king of the fairies should be given as much credence as one from steven hawking.
Oh. what a superficial zealot ive been
evidence of extensive ET ruins
Your right, after all a theory of gravity form a guy who lives in the woods who calls himself Gandalf king of the fairies should be given as much credence as one from steven hawking.
Oh. what a superficial zealot ive been
Yes you are, because all I wanted to convey with those links is the info on clear irregularities during those early experiments. Which you can find in million other places as well. But expecting that much thinking capability was way too optimistic, as it seems.
I'm quite sure that you would have reacted differently had I posted links leading to NASA sources instead, or your local football fanclub or your favourite magazine.
Now be a good zealot and let us stay on topic please.
I'm quite sure that you would have reacted differently had I posted links leading to NASA sources instead, or your local football fanclub or your favourite magazine.
Now be a good zealot and let us stay on topic please.
Regarding the first link: There is *zero* support for your gravity-anomaly. The rocket provided more thrust than expected, so even if they timed all the stages correct they ended up in a higher orbit.
I actually read the whole damn thing, something I seriously doubt you did.
The second link is pure stupidity/insanity.
And you're not just a messenger, you started out claiming gravity works in completely different ways than common understanding dictate, to the point that various space agencies have no idea where their shit ends up. You then "backed" your claim up by linking to a completely worthless site.
Cheers
You have to admit if there was a fundamental problem with our measuring of gravity that affected the launch of spacecraft we would have so many problems.
The fact is that there are thousands of satellites in orbit, many missions across the solar systems and astronauts have not been left stranded in space or made toast because we don't understand how to take into account the affects of gravity when launching rockets.
Sure, we don't understand a lot about our Universe but some things we do e.g. what goes up must come down (unless you can escape the pull of the Earth's gravity ~11.2km/s).
If we really didn't have much of a grip on physics I am sure all those tiny transistors and electrical currents in this computer would just tell me to "eff off" as I tried to type this message.
What say you?
The fact is that there are thousands of satellites in orbit, many missions across the solar systems and astronauts have not been left stranded in space or made toast because we don't understand how to take into account the affects of gravity when launching rockets.
Sure, we don't understand a lot about our Universe but some things we do e.g. what goes up must come down (unless you can escape the pull of the Earth's gravity ~11.2km/s).
If we really didn't have much of a grip on physics I am sure all those tiny transistors and electrical currents in this computer would just tell me to "eff off" as I tried to type this message.
What say you?
ps: what is this experiment I'll give it a try
Yes, the gravitational constant is one of the most difficult constant in physics to measure accurately, mostly because gravity is just too weak. However, that does not necessarily mean the gravity theory is wrong. Actually, 1 in 10^4 is pretty good already. Most commonly available instruments don't even have that kind of accuracy.
There are also many gravity stations around the world which are doing many experiments to get a better understanding of gravity, including better measurements of G. You know, if there are really any experiments which can clearly show that current understanding of gravity is wrong, that would make many scientists happy and excited because this kind of discovery generally leads to new findings.
IIRC it's somewhere at the second page of that enterprise link, with high-speed rotor and a ball.
Here: http://www.libertyandlove.org/AdvancedTech/01.BruceEDePalmaNMachine.aspx#Second
no, no
ps: I'm not happy with that experiment
the basic premise is a spinning ball fired upwards will fly higher and land quicker than a non spinning ball fired upwards with the same force and that this somehow proves there is an anti gravity effect
heres problem 1: the non spinning ball falls faster in contradiction to the statement (do i trust someone who cant make s simple observation)
problem 2: how is this different than a spinning bullet having a flatter trajectory than a non spinning bullet, that certainly is not anti gravity
the basic premise is a spinning ball fired upwards will fly higher and land quicker than a non spinning ball fired upwards with the same force and that this somehow proves there is an anti gravity effect
heres problem 1: the non spinning ball falls faster in contradiction to the statement (do i trust someone who cant make s simple observation)
problem 2: how is this different than a spinning bullet having a flatter trajectory than a non spinning bullet, that certainly is not anti gravity
Problem 0: Davros just has a big mouth and is not about to do anything but come with thin excuses, as expected.
And as for being "happy" - if you do not believe in something, you test and observe it in order to find out. Afterwards you can bitch if it proves you right, but not before.
And as for being "happy" - if you do not believe in something, you test and observe it in order to find out. Afterwards you can bitch if it proves you right, but not before.
Er, I don't have the equipment to rotate a steel ball at 27,000 rpm
maybe you do next to your chemical toilet and air filtration system but i don't
the evidence
another problem if the spinning ball produces anti gravity why at the top of its flight path would it suddenly stop producing anti gravity (while its still spinning) and produce gravity to allow it to hit the ground first (which is what they claim)
maybe you do next to your chemical toilet and air filtration system but i don't
the evidence
another problem if the spinning ball produces anti gravity why at the top of its flight path would it suddenly stop producing anti gravity (while its still spinning) and produce gravity to allow it to hit the ground first (which is what they claim)
dont forget the camera equipment and the strobelight.
plus I have a powerdrill it does 550rpm nowhere near 27,000 rpm having looked at several drills online expensive ones not cheap crap like I have none of them even hit 1,000 rpm
Still doesnt change the fact the experiment doesnt add up and the conclusions they draw from the evidence are plain wrong
plus I have a powerdrill it does 550rpm nowhere near 27,000 rpm having looked at several drills online expensive ones not cheap crap like I have none of them even hit 1,000 rpm
Still doesnt change the fact the experiment doesnt add up and the conclusions they draw from the evidence are plain wrong
arjan de lumens
Veteran
One MAJOR problem with the spinning-ball experiment as described is air drag. At 27000 rpm, a spinning 1-inch-diameter steel ball is going to have a surface speed of 130 km/h from the spinning alone . Such an object is going to interact with air in a very different way than a non-spinning object - if you throw it, it will follow a different trajectory than a non-spinning object - due to air drag. If you want to test whether there exists a rotation/gravity interaction effect distinct from the effect of air drag, you need to perform the whole experiment in a vacuum.
One major rule of thumb in science is that whenever you get an unexpected or noteworthy result, you should spend effort to rule out (or at the very least find upper bounds for) any sources of error that may have contributed to the result; in the case of the spinning-ball experiment, air drag is a potential such source (a rather obvious one, as far as I am concerned), and I couldn't find anywhere in the pages that _xxx_ linked to: any efforts to rule out air drag.
Here is a Youtube video with some examples where spin causes a soccer ball to follow a different trajectory than what Newtonian gravity taken in isolation would suggest:
Note that these examples feature an object rotating at a much slower speed than 27000 rpm, and thus should be easier to replicate. Hitherto-unexplained gravity anomalies or just fancy aerodynamics? I very much suspect the latter.
One major rule of thumb in science is that whenever you get an unexpected or noteworthy result, you should spend effort to rule out (or at the very least find upper bounds for) any sources of error that may have contributed to the result; in the case of the spinning-ball experiment, air drag is a potential such source (a rather obvious one, as far as I am concerned), and I couldn't find anywhere in the pages that _xxx_ linked to: any efforts to rule out air drag.
Here is a Youtube video with some examples where spin causes a soccer ball to follow a different trajectory than what Newtonian gravity taken in isolation would suggest:
How do you know world isn't standing on four elephants if you haven't tested it yourself?
Air drag is rather irrelevant with this weight/speed, but you may have a point there. But it could be tried in vacuum as well, so that's provable.
For the interested, there are many experiments and lots of research on this topic out there, google is your friend. This topic has been there ever since the 50ies at least, for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov, or another more recent example
More, with several real devices shown (and lots of esoteric blabber along with it, but whatever): http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/c...avity-magnetism-and-rotation-the-missing-link
It has been a controversial topic even before we were born, so I don't think we'll find a solution here either
For the interested, there are many experiments and lots of research on this topic out there, google is your friend. This topic has been there ever since the 50ies at least, for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov, or another more recent example
More, with several real devices shown (and lots of esoteric blabber along with it, but whatever): http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/c...avity-magnetism-and-rotation-the-missing-link
It has been a controversial topic even before we were born, so I don't think we'll find a solution here either
Similar threads
