E=mc^2

[Aaron]

DePalma spinning ball not effect of aerodynamics

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to correct you on this one. The funny thing is that you said it right, but didn't get the right conclusion.

The spinning ball slows down during its flight. The reduction in its rotational kinetic energy IS transferred to the air, and is made to do the work of creating lift for the ball. If this experiment was attempted in a vacuum chamber, the result would be null.

Link to NASA site showing the math behind lift due to rotating sphere.

The spinning ball goes up higher FASTER and goes out further and comes down FASTER as well.




Many conventional believers have tried to dismiss the results as aerodynamic effects but the NASA example does not even apply.

This diagram above that you reference is showing a horizontal axis and is showing lift is 90 degrees perpendicular to that axis.

The spinning ball experiment of DePalma is spinning with a VERTICAL axis meaning any aerodynamic effects according to the NASA website would be in the horizontal plane.

Nice try but no cigar.

For extraluminal propagation, you should study Dollard's old Longitudinal presentations from Borderlands.

[Allcanadian]

@I like science

The spinning ball slows down during its flight. The reduction in its rotational kinetic energy IS transferred to the air, and is made to do the work of creating lift for the ball. If this experiment was attempted in a vacuum chamber, the result would be null.

Link to NASA site showing the math behind lift due to rotating sphere.

It also relates to the Magnus Effect which may be one and the same as you have linked. As it turns out I use this effect every time I play golf and it never ceases to amaze me when my ball goes straight out like a bat out of hell then starts rising upward. I saw one of my friends make a monster drive and at about 300 yds I swore the ball curved damn near straight up then fell straight down.

I also saw a video on a really neat wind turbine based on this effect. The rotor blades were replaced with long cylinders which when made to spin on there axis would cause the rotor to spin. I wish I had more time to experiment with this effect because I have always found it very interesting, obvious but none the less interesting.

AC

[indio007]

It should be noted that this research was released the other day.

Rotationally driven ‘zebra stripes’ in Earth’s inner radiation belt
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13046.html

The rotation of the earth is dragging "electrons" (very high energy ones at that) along with it. The authors speculate on a cause. They have to because if they didn't speculate a cause their discovery won't be published. Discoveries alone aren't enough for science journals.

The observed phenomena is consistent with a dense/viscous ether.


I would also like to say something about the group velocity. The question is not settled as to whether the group velocity is real. I think it's quite odd that the everyone agrees on the group velocity (including negative and frozen light) but question superluminal velocity.

People will do and say anything to save Einstein's 4 dimensional pseudo Riemannian space-time metric.



They will even invent undetectable "dark" energy and "dark" matter as well as perform thought experiments (not real ones) and present it as science.

It's disgusting.

Has anyone ever falsified their own theory because they got a negative result in their thought experiment?

Sounds like a twisted form of confirmation bias to me.

[I_Like_Science]

The spinning ball experiment of DePalma is spinning with a VERTICAL axis meaning any aerodynamic effects according to the NASA website would be in the horizontal plane.

You are indeed correct, I am mistaken. The magnus effect truly doesn't apply in this instance.

As it turns out I use this effect every time I play golf and it never ceases to amaze me when my ball goes straight out like a bat out of hell then starts rising upward.

It is the Magnus effect hard at work there. But when that happens, a spin has been put on the ball with the axis through the center, horizontal to the ground and perpendicular to the direction of the swing.

So it doesn't apply to DePalma's ball. And since DePalma never put out any real data for his experiment (assuming he ever did it), I can't pick that apart.

.
.
.

BUT WAIT! There exists an oft cited paper that is a DIRECT TEST of DePalma's idea. What's better is that it is a gyroscope in a sealed container that has been dropped only. Surely, if there was an experiment that could truly prove this effect, it's this. It has theoretically isolated gyroscopic atmospheric effects, and has had very accurate measurements taken of its descent.

I really can't stress enough, this is a better version of the previously seen DePalma's (thought) experiment, with a heavier (theoretically more effective) gyroscope, precision equipment and a thorough report.

Here it is, in all its glory

And best of all, it has.....wait for it.....data!!!

I strongly encourage all with interest to read the linked article before proceeding on.

Done with it? Good.

First off, did you notice the part where the author stated that all data had been 'normalized' to the standard gravitational acceleration? Took me a while too. And they also didn't give us the freaking unmolested data! Did you also notice that they only took three measurements ever? The top height was determined through projectile equations, but the really important part is that they never took into account atmospheric drag in their equations.

Sorry, I'm compelled to shout these main errors so no-one misses them.
1. THE STUDY UNNECESSARILY 'NORMALIZED' THE DATA.
2. THEY DIDN'T GIVE US THE UNTAINTED DATA.
3. THEY DIDN'T, EVER, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ATMOSPHERIC DRAG.
4. (Not really a large error, but did anyone else notice that the paper referenced *itself*? LOL!)

Just look in the appendices. They use the pure projectile equations, which do not take into account drag, and this, on the time scales they are measuring, is absolutely non-negligible.

This in itself is bad. Combined with the fact that they 'normalized' their data is absolutely atrocious. That means that they have entirely neglected a very large potential source of error, and then exacerbated the problem with an unnecessary, and borderline fraudulent, normalization.

But, you ask, wouldn't the atmospheric drag be the same on the falling object in both instances? And that's a good question with an interesting answer.

See, a rotating gyroscope resists change to the direction of it's angular momentum. It's this fact that leads to some of a gyroscopes more interesting properties. This is important, because that means that the falling object with a rotating gyroscope is now internally spin-stabilized. The falling object will tilt less into the 'wind' due to the gyroscope's resistance to this force.

As drag is computed using the area facing the 'wind', and the spin-stabilized object will expose less area to the wind than the non-stabilized object will, the spin-stabilized object will fall faster. It's that simple.

But, not willing to leave well enough alone, I actually chose to model the descent properly with drag included.

The result? It only takes 3 degrees of tilt to slow down a falling cylinder more than the amount demonstrated in the paper of 0.00106s. This is completely sane tilt to experience. Don't believe me? Try dropping a bottle with the long axis pointing to ground and see how straight is stays.

I've pasted over my MATLAB code proving my work if anyone has access/ cares. Values are as close an approximation as I can make 'em given the data in the paper. The times do not line up directly with the paper due to their stupid normalization and lack of giving out un-corrupted data.

function depalmadisproof

clc

massobj = 7.23 / 2.2; %kg

diam = 6 * 0.0254; %m converted from in
len = 10 * 0.0254; %m converted from in
theta = 3; %deg

areatilt = cosd(theta)*pi*(diam/2)^2 + cosd(90-theta)*diam*len;
areagy = pi*(diam/2)^2;

for j = 1:2

if j == 1
area = areagy;
else
area = areatilt;
end

Cdcyl = 1.15;
rho = 1.225;
t = 0:0.00001:1;
g = 9.806;

val = 0.5*rho*t.^2*Cdcyl*area;
c = sqrt(massobj^2 - 4*val*-massobj*g);

a1 = (massobj + c) ./ (2*val);
a2 = (massobj - c) ./ (2*val);

h1 = 0.1378; %m paper states 0.1378m
h2 = 3.2361; %m paper states 3.2361m

ht = h1 + h2;

pos = 0.5*a2.*t.^2 + ht; %11.069 ft = 3.3738m

for i = 1:length(t)
if pos(i) < (ht - h1)
t1 = t(i);
break
end
end

for i = 1:length(t)
if pos(i) < 0
t2 = t(i);
break
end
end

tm1(j) = t1
tm2(j) = t2

end

tm1
tm2

notilttime = tm2(1) - tm1(2)
tilttime = tm2(2) - tm1(2)

tdiff = tilttime - notilttime


In summary, this whole 'A falling gyroscope disproves Einstein' business is bunk. Drop it in a vacuum and the result will be null.

And please, if you're going to bring up the 'naked' spinning ball of DePalma again, at least link to some data/proof.

Nice try but no cigar.

I'll be having my cigar now.

[Ruphus]

Twisted space

Has anyone else thought of the curvature of space not quite as the rubber sheet analogy but rather modified. Take the "mass" (which is unexplained in Einsteins model) at the center of the sheet and you and your buddy start twisting the ends in opposite directions. You end up with a sheet in an hourglass shape with space exerting inward pressure on the mass that is now nicely wrapped up at the center. The ancient grape press if you will. What I like about viewing it this way is that now rotational motion of energy can explain mass and curved space.

Just my thoughts and I haven't found any proof to justify it.

[Allcanadian]

@indio007

I would also like to say something about the group velocity. The question is not settled as to whether the group velocity is real. I think it's quite odd that the everyone agrees on the group velocity (including negative and frozen light) but question superluminal velocity.

People will do and say anything to save Einstein's 4 dimensional pseudo Riemannian space-time metric.

I read an article in Nature regarding a study that found something like 47% of scientists knew a colleague who altered their data in their favor or just outright fabricated it which is a little disturbing. The thing to remember is that their human first and a scientist second thus subject to all the defects we as humans have, no better no worse. Which makes real science and real facts all that much more difficult because the study basically said almost one half are lier's and cheats... go figure.

AC

[Aaron]

@I Like Science

You are indeed correct, I am mistaken. The magnus effect truly doesn't apply in this instance.



It is the Magnus effect hard at work there. But when that happens, a spin has been put on the ball with the axis through the center, horizontal to the ground and perpendicular to the direction of the swing.

So it doesn't apply to DePalma's ball. And since DePalma never put out any real data for his experiment (assuming he ever did it), I can't pick that apart.

.
.
.

BUT WAIT! There exists an oft cited paper that is a DIRECT TEST of DePalma's idea. What's better is that it is a gyroscope in a sealed container that has been dropped only. Surely, if there was an experiment that could truly prove this effect, it's this. It has theoretically isolated gyroscopic atmospheric effects, and has had very accurate measurements taken of its descent.

I have insights into DePalma's work that most people have never heard. A friend and business partner worked with him for a long time so I have the scoop on a lot of things. The only things I'll share are what are published because I do respect people's privacy. DePalma isn't around anymore but his friends and associates are. Bottom line is that what I have said about it accounts for the results in all his related experiments. Am I right? Your definitions are definitely incorrect and I'm fine being at least closer to the truth.

Yes, he did do the spinning ball experiment. DePalma was a genius behind some Polaroid film technology, etc... and was doing tests with some stroboscopic effects and happen to have the strobes with him. That is why you see the ball in incremental steps because it was filmed with a strobe light. Nothing magical and no amount of data will overcome the obvious visual fact that it went high faster and came down faster. Get over it. If we're talking about fractional mm differences that you can't even see with your eyes, then bring on the data. Otherwise, get real.

Even with data, I'm not sure you're qualified to pick any of this apart. You quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics in your signature line and that doesn't apply to any of these systems even if you really, really, really believe it. Belief doesn't make it so.

Are you willing to reveal your identity or do you just want to try to debunk anything that doesn't fit your beliefs anonymously?

Every one of these systems are non-equilibrium open dissipative systems and the second law of thermodynamics actually does not apply to any natural system in the universe. It has always been a misunderstanding.

You don't even do the experiments but you automatically "know" that the effect in a vacuum would be null.

Trying to pass off the falling gyroscope results as being due to the gyroscopic stabilization is not just a far reach, it's laughable.

Yes, gyroscopes resist change, but you have no explanation of why that is but you will try to use it as a way to back your belief.

At least the model I'm sharing accounts for the way gyroscopes act. I'm not going into that with you because all your statements are rooted in the idea that you already have it all figured out so there is nothing for you to learn. Not that I'm claiming to be a teacher, but I'm always open to learning and to have my own ideas disproved or proved and I wish the conventionally minded skeptics/cynics would do the same. You've already played your cards as being already convinced on multiple occasions that in a vacuum all of this would disappear without having ever done any experiments on it and you obviously don't know very much about DePalma's work.

The premise for your beliefs can be destroyed in a couple easy steps.

WITHOUT a bunch of convoluted BS, misdirection, irrelevant points and in the fewest possible words that you can possibly handle.... do not talk about speed of the lift and other things to confuse people because TIME is irrelevant in calculating the energy to lift the ball - can take 1 second or 1 year, the energy dissipated will be the same. Please do this honestly, authentically, and without the fairy dust and condescending hype... do not go into a lecture on elastic collision and other things that take the focus off the question.

This takes 3rd grade math and 8th grade equations. We'll see what you're real purpose here is and I don't think it is to help anyone out in understanding math, physics or engineering.

Show the total dissipated energy that it takes to lift a 3kg solid ball in a vacuum from sea level on Planet Earth to the height of 3 meters. Then show the total dissipated energy on impact when it is allowed to fall inside that vacuum and hit the floor. The ball does NOT bounce.

[indio007]

@indio007


I read an article in Nature regarding a study that found something like 47% of scientists knew a colleague who altered their data in their favor or just outright fabricated it which is a little disturbing. The thing to remember is that their human first and a scientist second thus subject to all the defects we as humans have, no better no worse. Which makes real science and real facts all that much more difficult because the study basically said almost one half are lier's and cheats... go figure.

AC

I not sure if you know but 2 medical journals and the American Academy of Science of put out research in the last few years revealing that scinetific fraud is up 10000% since the 1970's. I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia but they have a good entry about it. Scientific misconduct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Allcanadian]

@indio007

I not sure if you know but 2 medical journals and the American Academy of Science of put out research in the last few years revealing that scinetific fraud is up 10000% since the 1970's. I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia but they have a good entry about it. Scientific misconduct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another prime example why "self-regulation" does not work and it's kind of comical how people artificially elevate their status to the point they believe they are beyond reproach. I never have subscribed to that kind of nonsense and believe we are judged not by what we say but what we do as individuals.

I think many self-regulating profession's have become inherently corrupt and social media and whistle blowers have shown us the tip of a very large iceberg. I think most responsible adults understand that being given permission to do something inherently wrong does not mean we should ever consider doing it because it contradicts everything we say we believe. In effect we would be no better than liar's and criminals contradicting ourselves.

I like the phrase--- the truth means we never have to remember what we said.

AC

[I_Like_Science]

I'm not sure you're qualified to pick any of this apart.

A fair enough question to raise. I was hoping to not have to do this, because it makes me seem overly egotistical and the math really does stand separate from those who do it, but here ya go.



Yes, that literally makes me a rocket scientist. And that makes me very qualified to analyze atmospheric effects

(And yes there's a 4 hour delay in the timestamp and posting. I'll take another picture if anyone really wants, hell, I'll even do an object request to add validity, just say what you want a picture of next to it! Within reason of course.)

We'll see what you're real purpose here is and I don't think it is to help anyone out in understanding math, physics or engineering.

Actually, it is partly to do just that. If you'll notice the date of my degree, it's somewhat old, so this also serves the purpose of 'breaking of the rust' (rust also being the reason why I got the analysis wrong in the first place. Live and re-learn I suppose).

Frankly, it also sucks seeing people, who I honestly think would have the right mindset for scientific work, getting hijacked by psuedo-science. There are yet to be great discoveries made and textbooks re-written, but odds are you won't get to do it if you throw out the entire set of teachings in the first place, because at least the bulk of them were validated before you were born. Almost more importantly, you need to learn these ideas first, to truly understand their strengths and weaknesses.

So now that you guys see where I'm coming from a bit more, hopefully you'll keep an open mind to what I'm going to say. I'll try to keep it as nice as possible, but I am dealing with a very.....pointed.....post. I suppose I'll just go top to bottom.

(Not quite an edit, but a post-writing addition here. I started getting more dickish halfway through. Something about really dissecting a post that says 'you're wrong' but provides no proof after I spent 5 or 6 HOURS going through the math and data to make my case annoys me. I've redacted the worst of my vitriol, but I'm choosing to leave the rest as I wrote it.)

The only things I'll share are what are published because I do respect people's privacy.

Please, go ahead and share.

Your definitions are definitely incorrect .

My definitions come from physics and engineering textbooks, and are not the dictionary definitions (though similar) like I've seen you quote. If you take exception to a term I use, please feel free to point it out.

I will warn, however, that I find much of psuedo-science comes down to a semantic battle that I will not be drug into (even you recognize this fact, as evidenced by your attempt at compiling a small dictionary). If you take exception, I will try to explain the definition that has allowed physics and engineering to work, but after that, it's all up to your belief.

Nothing magical and no amount of data will overcome the obvious visual fact that it went high faster and came down faster. Get over it. If we're talking about fractional mm differences that you can't even see with your eyes, then bring on the data. Otherwise, get real.

Aaron, we ARE talking about fractional mm differences. Even if it weren't, data is necessary, it's what proves things. Make a prediction, do experiment (read: take data), results (working of data), conclusion. What has happened here is a flaw in the results. They took fine data as far as I can tell, but didn't model accurately enough the experiment to draw the right conclusion.

And even if you can link me to an experiment with data done by DePalma, it's already been shown that his results DON'T REPEAT. That is what the falling gyroscope experiment shows. That is a horrible thing to say about a theory, and basically shoots it down.

You quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics in your signature line and that doesn't apply to any of these systems even if you really, really, really believe it. Belief doesn't make it so.
.
Every one of these systems are non-equilibrium open dissipative systems and the second law of thermodynamics actually does not apply to any natural system in the universe.

Ok, I actually laughed at this one. The main points I make in any post are, unsurprisingly, in the BODY of the post, NOT the signature of the post. You're totally, but irrelevantly, right that none of these examples involves thermodynamics. But I never said they did.

Oh, and just to clarify, I don't think this post has anything to do with that law either, but my signature'll still be there

And I'll only touch on the second point, but like it or not, entropy is always created (converted from a 'higher-quality' energy more properly) in any irreversible (real) process. This conversion to entropy has been empirically (meaning by observation/data) demonstrated.

In short, we're not sure if the universe as a whole is constrained to this fact, but we're damn sure things on earth are.

Believing otherwise does not make it so. (See, I can do it too )

Are you willing to reveal your identity or do you just want to try to debunk anything that doesn't fit your beliefs anonymously?

Welcome to the internet! If you REALLY wanted to know my identity, I'm sure there are ways you could find out. But no, I won't make it easier for you. You have my necessary credentials, and that will have to suffice.

You don't even do the experiments but you automatically "know" that the effect in a vacuum would be null.

Alright, I suppose that is a little ambitious of me to say "For 100% certain there will NEVER EVER be another force in a vacuum test". But really, I haven't seen any evidence that it wouldn't go exactly like that. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Trying to pass off the falling gyroscope results as being due to the gyroscopic stabilization is not just a far reach, it's laughable.

Hope your sides don't hurt too badly, Aaron. But are you even going to try to disprove me?

I'm not going into that with you.

*SIGH* I suppose not. What's the point of a rational scientific conversation where it is point counter point?

If at any time you feel you can prove to me why atmospheric drag can be left out of the equation, feel free to let me know. Until then, a natural difference in tilt between the two situations is the best explanation of these results. Not aether.

Yes, gyroscopes resist change, but you have no explanation of why that is but you will try to use it as a way to back your belief.

Really, I know I get long-winded, so I was trying to leave out something we could all agree on. We obviously do, but that I didn't explain it for you negates my math? That's the best you've got?

Click the blue shiny text and all shall be explained!

At least the model I'm sharing accounts for the way gyroscopes act.

Mine doesn't *have* to. It makes sane observations of what gyroscopes simply do. Even if gyroscopes also have magical zero point energy harnessing capabilites, they also resist changes in the direction of their torque.

I was going to do more math analysis, and might still, but for now I'm just going to leave it there. Maybe I'll do it later just to kick off more rust and put an end to the silliness that is this side of the 'argument'.

all your statements are rooted in the idea that you already have it all figured out so there is nothing for you to learn

There is a lot I have left to learn (hell, I'm back in college now!), but the data doesn't back the stuff you're thinking I should be 'learning'.

Not that I'm claiming to be a teacher [ILS addition: ], but I'm always open to learning and to have my own ideas disproved or proved and I wish the conventionally minded skeptics/cynics would do the same.

I AM open Aaron, but you've even explicitly stated that you won't try to prove or disprove, instead relying on your own belief that you are right.

Seriously, anytime you want to show how my demonstration of a valid potential source of error within the experiment is wrong, I am all ears. You can do this by showing that the drag is not different between the two cases (spinning/non-spinning gyro). Really, the fact I haven't gone over the gyroscopic effects in mathematical detail could prove to your benefit here, but you're choosing only to state that I didn't so I'm wrong instead of doing the mathematical proof and PROVING it.

you obviously don't know very much about DePalma's work.

Nope. I am only focused on this one aspect. But so far he isn't impressing me.

The premise for your beliefs can be destroyed in a couple easy steps.

Then by all means show them. I'm not going to play along with a stupid question that I'm sure, no matter what answer I give, will be met with an "Aha! Gotcha! You forgot [insert x unverifiable theorem]!". You're just trying to set yourself up to catch me making, in your eyes, a mistake to give yourself the 'higher ground'. Don't play like that Aaron. I can be damn condescending, but I am not manipulative.

If your proof stands, you don't need to see me 'fail' to bolster your side.

I was going to post the whole paragraph that starts with "WITHOUT a bunch of convoluted BS", but it's just far too angry a paragraph for me to really want to deal with. The entire thing could've just been written, "as succinctly as possible", but that's not, dare I say, condescending enough.

I'm still waiting on a VALID counter point to my previous post.

[thx1138]

I Like Science Too

Just a comment on "I don't know so therefore Aliens". I like those guys. I read von Daniken's stuff back in the 70's when it first came out. They are so far out of the box it at least gets a few brain cells clacking together.

But I've figured out that the aliens are us. Sounds like a flying saucer store - Aliens Are Us - space vehicles are our game. Of course that also works out to AAS which is a little too close to ASS for marketing purposes.

Studying Tesla got me to studying geophysics and part of that is that there are terrestrial polar reversals every 0.4 to 1.6 million years or so. Our civilization is roughly 20 to 40 thousand years old depending on who you listen to.

Considering our technological competence today, gained in only 0.040 miliion years, consider what it might be if our civilization were a million years old.

Now suppose some civilization before us had lasted a million years and developed near light speed travel and took off on a journey which for them was a thousand years and while they were gone another polar reversal occurred and brought civilization to it knees and we are picking up the pieces.

They come back and five hundred thousand years or so have transpired on the earth. They look around and take off again, shaking their heads. Who could blame them? They are our ancestors.

[indio007]

@I_Like_Science

Appeal to Accomplishment

Whipping out a piece of paper that is quite frankly irrelevant to the merits of your assertions undermines your credibility.

Science has a long history of clinging to erroneous models.
People have literally died over them.
Relativity is in it's death throes.
The data fudging , decades of confirmation bias, inapplicability to the physical world and growing number of experimental falsifications has made it untenable.

I have literally read at the bottom of a a published paper that they were going to disregard their experimental data because it conflicted with relativity.

That is a sad state of affairs.
Model -> Experiment is a recent innovation.
It used to be Experiment -> Model.

The former method is subject to multiple levels of confirmation bias.

[aljhoa]

I not sure if you know but 2 medical journals and the American Academy of Science of put out research in the last few years revealing that scinetific fraud is up 10000% since the 1970's. I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia but they have a good entry about it. Scientific misconduct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition, some academics consider suppression—the failure to publish significant findings due to the results being adverse to the interests of the researcher or his/her sponsor(s)—to be a form of misconduct as well.
Scientific misconduct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al

[Aaron]

@I Like Science

@I Like Science

I really have nothing against open minded academics but a degree doesn't do anything for your credibility either. You follow the pattern of a cynical "skeptic" with your sarcastic and condescending mode of communication and so I called you on it - your response to my own question is that it is an angry post while ignoring the below condescending comments that you started it off with.

"BUT WAIT! There exists an oft cited paper that is a DIRECT TEST of DePalma's idea. ... And best of all, it has.....wait for it.....data!!!"

Sounded more like you're reading from an infomercial teleprompter than being sincere. Looks like a premeditated plan to try to debunk anything and everything that doesn't match what you already think you believe regardless of what the facts are.

I know "rocket scientists", professors in physics, etc... who have an opinion opposite of yours so having a degree in aerospace engineering doesn't in and of itself mean that your beliefs have any more validity. There is more evidence to counter your opinion than support it. Seeing that others with these same kind of credentials agree with me, I could argue that my opinion is just as credible if not more.

A counter to your belief that the non spinning gyro in the case is able to tip in a way that causes more drag and the spinning gyro is stabilized keeping it from tipping and therefore falls faster is 100% speculation on your part and there is no rational counter to to an objection that is a figment of your imagination.

Should air resistance be accounted for? Sure - but it if both containers fell with the same drag, and we have no reason to believe they that they did not, it is automatically expressed in the results that show the spinning gyroscope fell faster. On the other hand, you are simply reaching for an argument based on speculation that they fell differently.

If you think the containers were positioned differently as they fell, which caused a difference in their falling speed, the burden of proof is on YOU to do the experiment and find out. Getting me to argue with your imagination is an effort in futility.

The results in the test are not speculation and no, we're not talking about fractional mm differences - in DePalma's experiment, which is what I clearly referred to, the peak of the spinning ball is about 4-5 inches higher than the non-spinning ball. There is a crossover point when things are just obvious for what they are and no amount of data can make that reality more or less than what it is. If that spinning ball was within a few mm's of the non-spinning ball, then not so obvious so data would be needed to see IF there were results. Data shouldn't be used as a crutch to replace common sense. Anyone with common sense can see the spinning ball went 4-5 inches higher and anyone with common sense will know that data is not necessary to prove it went higher in this case. Data will only help to quantify how much higher with a larger degree of accuracy.

With facts, I actually did debunk your aerodynamic claim about the spinning ball experiment and you quickly applied basic misdirection methods to point to the gyroscope test and then continue on your aerodynamic trip. You failed to address the fact that the spinning ball went higher, faster, and aerodynamic lift did not contribute to the lift as you originally claimed. You can't distract the attention from this fact no matter how hard you try.

"Nothing magical and no amount of data will overcome the obvious visual fact that it went high faster and came down faster. Get over it. If we're talking about fractional mm differences that you can't even see with your eyes, then bring on the data. Otherwise, get real." - that is what I said.

"Aaron, we ARE talking about fractional mm differences. Even if it weren't, data is necessary, it's what proves things." - what you said...

Those are both our quotes. I clearly spelled out that I was talking about DePalma's and not the gyroscope. You said fractional mm differences, which is the gyroscope. What - you conveniently got confused so you didn't have to address DePalma's POSITIVE results? You'd rather argue something with results that are several orders of magnitude smaller than DePalma's spinning ball results?? LOL

Posting a degree in Aerospace Engineering and then writing off the height difference with an explanation that had no relevance from a NASA website and then miscomprehending a very simple non-technical statement of mine doesn't speak too highly of your analytical skills so far.

Standard pinball size is 1-1/16th inch so it is easy to see we are talking about a height difference of 4-5 ball diameters difference, which is 4-5 inches. Data is not necessary to prove the spinning ball went higher, data can only tell us more accurately how much higher exactly. The ball went higher and it isn't from aerodynamics.

Being that the balls are identical and are launched into the air with the same energy, they should have both went to the same height but the spinning ball defeated force x distance since it went higher than the input work would allow according to simple 8th grade formulas.

It went out further but that is because it went higher, but in the forward motion, it could be argued that since the aerodynamic "lift" is perpendicular to the axis that some aerodynamics MAY have come into play to move it forward, but then it fell faster than the non-spinning ball.

You have offered zero evidence that any of this is pseudo-science. Claiming that spinning energy is imparted to the air is pseudo-science. Trying to debunk the gyroscope results based on imaginary happenings in your mind is pseudo science. Ignoring 4-5 inches of height difference which cannot be argued with in preference of arguing microscopic differences is pseudo-science.

Many definitions from physics and engineering textbooks are incorrect. They actually match dictionary definitions quite well.

Those Google results don't show why gyroscopes resist change. They simply give parroted/regurgitated explanations and not one single one can simply explain in simple, rational terms that a child can understand. They are clueless as to the basic simple nature of how rotating objects operate and no amount of convoluted jargon or equations will prove they know anything. It just proves they can copy something from a book and paste it with their mouth.

"The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane." - Nikola Tesla

I agree, no matter the cause, the gyroscopes do what they do. I could equally call your conventional viewpoints "magical" as you say about ZPE - which in fact would closer reflect reality seeing that the conventional view of energy and potential really is quite magically absurd - storing potential energy and other schizophrenic claims and the list goes on and on.

"but we're damn sure things on earth are. " - not you, nor the conventional scientific establishment, nor anyone else including those that believe in the aether is "damn sure" about how anything on Earth works or anywhere else.

There is zero evidence of conservation of energy, there is zero evidence of conservation of momentum, etc... and there is no evidence to support any of that nonsense. However, very simple analysis of observable reality, including child-like mathematical analysis, shows more evidence to support what I am saying - and as predicted, you couldn't answer the very simple question I proposed to you. I knew you would give some long-winded reply that would circumvent that - typical.

You claim - "you've even explicitly stated that you won't try to prove or disprove, instead relying on your own belief that you are right." - you are definitely speaking with a forked-tongue. That is 180 degrees opposite of what I actually did say. Yet another failure in simple comprehension of the English language. It would probably have been in your favor to not post a copy of your degree.

What I said was, "I'm always open to learning and to have my own ideas disproved or proved and I wish the conventionally minded skeptics/cynics would do the same."

You admit to being condescending but not manipulative - well, you have manipulated this several times already. Here is a FALSE argument - "If at any time you feel you can prove to me why atmospheric drag can be left out of the equation, feel free to let me know."

I never said it should be left out - you shouldn't be making a statement that implies that I think that either. As I said above - you claim the "best" reason for the time difference is the containers fell differently, which IS a figment of your imagination. You are the one that thinks that is the reason for the time difference, so prove it. You don't see me saying it is an irrelevant point, but as of right now, there is no evidence they fell differently and whether you like the data or not, the results of that experiment so far support the same results that DePalma got in the spinning ball experiment. Between these two experiments, there is MORE evidence in support of these ideas and you have not picked apart anything.

I'm also not interested in mathematical explanations of gyroscopic movement. I would however be interested in you stating your understanding in bare basic English explaining the nature of it without writing down one single number. If you can't do that, then you are also parroting something without actually understanding the nature of it.

"I'm not going to play along with a stupid question that I'm sure, no matter what answer I give, will be met with an "Aha! Gotcha! You forgot [insert x unverifiable theorem]!". You're just trying to set yourself up to catch me making, in your eyes, a mistake to give yourself the 'higher ground'. Don't play like that Aaron. I can be damn condescending, but I am not manipulative."

You are trying to manipulate your way out of answering a simple question that any junior high school physical class student should be able to answer. If you fail "in my eyes", why would you even care? It is a very simple two part question with two simple answers. I'm not the only one here in this thread - I'm sure some will agree and some may disagree, but by refusing to answer the question, all you're doing is making it look like you are trying to weasel out of something that could easily debunk your conventional mysticism.

Show the total dissipated energy that it takes to lift a 3kg solid ball in a vacuum from sea level on Planet Earth to the height of 3 meters. Then show the total dissipated energy on impact when it is allowed to fall inside that vacuum and hit the floor. The ball does NOT bounce.

Make it a perfect sphere of clay so on impact it just hits with a thud and turns into a pancake.

[Aaron]

fraud in mainstream science

Talk about oft-cited papers, fake computer generated papers by a fictitious author is cited more than Einstein.

More Computer-Generated Nonsense Papers Pulled From Science Journals - The Wire

This shows the mentality of so much of what happens in the conventional academic world - citing papers that are randomly generated by a computer. LOL

What does that say of all the "authoritative" degrees behind the names of those that cited these bogus papers? It shows that this bit of wisdom is so very true:

"... my convictions led me to adhere to the sufficiency of the light within us, resting on truth as authority, rather than “taking authority for truth.” - Lucretia Mott

The below is about FDA "science" - but EVERY BIT of this applies to mainstream physics and energy science research - it's a copy and paste from one of my old blog posts...

------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that many doctors that sign off on the studies that are supposed to show a drug is safe have never even been involved in the study? They were paid to simply put their autograph on a paper to get it through!


Let me give you a few facts about FDA corruption and their drug approval methods that are even stated by FDA scientists themselves. A few years ago, thousands of FDA scientists were surveyed and here are a few things that were learned:

• The survey found that 61% of the responding scientists knew of cases where the “Department of Health and Human Services or FDA political appointees have inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions.”
• Out of the nearly 1000 scientists who responded, close to one-fifth or 18.4%, said they had “been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document.“

The first shows a political influence in scientific matters and the second show that 18.4% of the scientists were essentially asked to lie by exclusion or alteration of data. So, just because the FDA approves something, that does not in and of itself mean that safety was actually a consideration in approving it!


Let’s look at some more FDA fraud and medical quackery:

• The scientists state in no uncertain terms that they’re afraid to bring up a lot of safety issues with drugs because they’ll be the recipients of retaliation.
• Nearly one in five said that they “have been pressured to approve or recommend approval” for a drug “despite reservations about the safety, efficacy or quality of the drug.”
• the agency approved the antibiotic, Ketek, despite serious questions about the drug’s safety and efficacy, and with full knowledge that the clinical study submitted to support Ketek’s approval was fraudulent.
• Over the past couple of years, the suppression of the scientific process and the muzzling of scientific dissent at the FDA became evident first when officials forced Dr Andrew Mosholder to suppress a link he found between SSRI antidepressants and suicide in children, and Dr Graham went public with allegations about the FDA’s mishandling of the Vioxx matter.

These are a few out of countless instances of FDA fraud. You can see the breakdown of the survey and the rest of the article here – and this example of FDA fraud is only a drop in the bucket: Lawmakers Say FDA Better Clean Up Its Act


So anyone that is naive enough to believe that the FDA actually works to make sure that the public safety is the primary concern needs to simply grow up! They need to become mature enough to realize that the FDA is a puppet arm of the pharmaceutical companies as a matter of fact. And the documentation reveals this fact in no uncertain terms. Get familiar with the term “revolving door.”

------------------------------------

The "free energy" field is not exempt from this fraud, but most of the fraud isn't officially endorsed however. LOL

It's usually perpetrated by independent operators. Sometimes it is intentional, but often it is just out of ignorance of the inventor (not technically fraud in this case) or those investigating it who aren't qualified to know what they're looking at but they make up convincing stories.

Over the years, mainstream science has called all of this aetheric free energy field pseudo science or quackery, etc... but in the end, it looks like the real crackpots have been the most staunch supporters of conventional physics all along.