Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 16:16:22
-
I get the reasoning. Is there a list of experiments that proved it too?
The only experiments worth talking about that i know of are (1) Podkletnov's work & (2) dePalma's work.
Podkletnov claimed to have made a gravity beam using a spinning disc. He wrote articles & is also on youtube.
DePalma (now dead) claimed to have altered the g force acting on a ball by spinning the ball. I think there are articles on google.
[SEE ALSO THE LINK TO ANOTHER THREAD RE DEPALMA & RE PODKLETNOV]
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75539.msg560753#msg560753
-
Why bother to do the experiment?
Imagine I et a heavy flywheel and connect it to a generator.
Then I put the gravity shield under one side of the wheel.
That side of the wheel is now lighter so it is pulled up by the weight of the other side of the wheel.
The wheel starts to turn and it turns the generator.
I have a "free energy" machine- a perpetual motion generator.
But, since that's impossible, we know that there can not be a gravity shield.
Why waste money on the experiment, when you know it can't work?
-
Why bother to do the experiment?
Imagine I get a heavy flywheel and connect it to a generator.
Then I put the gravity shield under one side of the wheel.
That side of the wheel is now lighter so it is pulled up by the weight of the other side of the wheel.
The wheel starts to turn and it turns the generator.
I have a "free energy" machine- a perpetual motion generator.
But, since that's impossible, we know that there can not be a gravity shield.
Why waste money on the experiment, when you know it can't work?
I think there is something gravitational going on with Podkletnov's spinning disc. He reports an effect on clock rate when a clock is placed near the axis. He reports having a gravity beam also that goes throo walls. For sure there is something gravitational going on. But gravity shields are a silly notion. Even Podkletnov knows that u cannot shield gravity. His live beam adds to it or negates it, just like dead mass can.
-
He reports an effect...
Does anyone else?
Is the effect repeatable?
-
The rate of a clock will be altered by the proximity of any mass. The question is whether it changes if the mass spins. There is no obvious reason why it should.
But it does at least explain a phenomenon that has puzzled me for years. The instrument panel of a light aircraft contains all sorts of delicate machinery which seems to work for years and years despite being boiled, frozen, vibrated, bounced around, flown to silly altitudes, subject to loads of g in all directions, kicked as you get in the plane, sneezed and vomited over, and parked on the grass in all weathers. Except for the clock. Probably the simplest, most robust, most mature piece of kit on the panel, and they never work. Electric or mechanical, all certified airworthy, and I've never known one to actually tell the time. Now I understand why - there are at least three gyroscopes on the same panel!
-
He reports an effect...
Does anyone else? Is the effect repeatable?
I dont know of any similar test or verification of a change in ticking or gravity etc.
I can imagine anything like this being hushed up, if by the government (for defense), & if by a science institute (to save embarrassment)(especially if it contradicts SR or GR)(which praps it dont).
I suggested an experiment to a scientist once, but was ignored. I suggested that clocks be placed at certain locations near a spinning wheel on one of those buses that are driven by such inertia (inertial drive)(there were buses going past his university)(how hard would it be?).
Podkletnov used an ordinary modern precision wrist watch (how hard would it be?)
-
The rate of a clock will be altered by the proximity of any mass. The question is whether it changes if the mass spins. There is no obvious reason why it should.
The only possible reason that i know of is my own theory. Except that Einsteinian frame dragging might explain the change in ticking (in an Einsteinian universe)(i dont believe in frame dragging)(whatever that is).
Podkletnov thort it had something to do with the low temperatures he used.
And or some sort of accidental or induced vibration (here i might be getting confused with something else).
My explanation involves aether, as usual. Podkletnov doesnt believe in aether, or at least he never mentions it.
If aether can be centrifuged (i think it can) then this must result in aether being sucked in at the Equator (using Earth as an example), in which case aether will be forced out at Earth's Poles.
The acceleration of the inflow will add to Earth's gravity at the Equator & would increase apparent g -- this inflow would be radial & would vary as per 1/R (whereas Earth's gravity varies as per 1/RR).
The acceleration of the outflow might be zero, if the outflow takes the form of a beam (one beam at each Pole). In which case the outflow would not affect apparent g at the Poles.
This Earthly effect must be very weak, however it is possible that a hi-speed disc might have a strongish effect (on gravity & on ticking).
-
Let's simplify
spinning is a acceleration
Earth accelerates too, by one gravity
do you find your wristwatch to change their 'ticks'?
And of course, can you prove it?
-
Podkletnov used an ordinary modern precision wrist watch (how hard would it be?)
A "modern precision wrist watch" keeps good time because it is worn on your wrist. The quartz oscillator is slightly temperature-sensitive and is calibrated for about 30 deg C. Vibration and even air pressure can alter the crystal frequency. If you compare it with a cesium frequency standard, it drifts all over the place and is therefore not a "measure" but a reasonably adequate "indicator" of time. Interestingly, however, the crystal frequency is independent of g.
-
Podkletnov used an ordinary modern precision wrist watch (how hard would it be?)
A "modern precision wrist watch" keeps good time because it is worn on your wrist. The quartz oscillator is slightly temperature-sensitive and is calibrated for about 30 deg C. Vibration and even air pressure can alter the crystal frequency. If you compare it with a cesium frequency standard, it drifts all over the place and is therefore not a "measure" but a reasonably adequate "indicator" of time. Interestingly, however, the crystal frequency is independent of g.
Interesting. Yes i think Podkletnov used a quartz watch. Praps not best. Especially with all that vibration going on. Plus some super low temps a few inches away. I suppose that u could have pairs of watches. Say spinning disc is horizontal -- u could have 1 pair above the axis, 1 pair below the axis, a few pairs around near the equator (ie disc rim), & a few pairs well away near the walls.
This would be an easy skool project. If i ever did a science experiment then this would be it. Centrifuging of aether is my pet theory.
I have seen only one mention of such a theory on google. U might find a couple of similar sounding mentions on google but u will find that these talk of aether being spat out around the equator (a naive notion) , & being sucked in near the poles, the exact opposite of my theory -- & my theory is the only one that has a chance of being correct, altho the aforementioned clock experiment would show a result either way.
U would of course take readings during the course of 1 day with the disc stationary. Then 1 days worth of readings with the disc spinning. Hopefully both days being very similar weatherwise.
Somebody should do it. U could of course just bring a spinning disc up close to an atomic clock & quickly see if any change when close then away then close etc. Needing another clock in the adjacent room i guess.
Handy hints. The effect on ticking above the disc will be different to below. Here i am not referring to the different gravitational potential -- i am talking about an aetheric reason (although gravitational potential is aetheric)(but a different sort of aetheric)(i can explain).
Clocks near the rim of the disc will suffer almost zero change.
Superlow temps not needed.
Vibration not needed.
Proof of modifying gravity in this way would be a first & would be quickly rewarded with a Nobel, plus some more Nobels down the track.
U might get lots of complaints & nuisance calls from Podkletnov, just ignore him, i thort of all of this before i knew of Podkletnov, & anyhow he hasnt a clue about the cause, he blames superlow temps & vibration or something.
The cause is due to a beam of aether going away axially. Podkletnov knows about the beam(s) (two beams, one at each pole). The speed of the aether in the beam must affect ticking. However contrary to what Podkletnov says the beam does not affect gravity (g). However swinging the beam across a gravimeter will affect the meter (& gravity), but only while swinging across, a fixed beam will not affect a gravimeter (i can explain better).
Hmmm, ok a fixed beam wont affect gravity, but it will affect apparent gravity, because by affecting the "ticking" of the gravimeter the fixed beam must affect the g reading (but this will be an apparent change) not a real change. But swinging the beam across the gravimeter must result in a real change in g, albeit briefly.
-
Podkletnov used an ordinary modern precision wrist watch (how hard would it be?)
A "modern precision wrist watch" keeps good time because it is worn on your wrist. The quartz oscillator is slightly temperature-sensitive and is calibrated for about 30 deg C. Vibration and even air pressure can alter the crystal frequency. If you compare it with a cesium frequency standard, it drifts all over the place and is therefore not a "measure" but a reasonably adequate "indicator" of time. Interestingly, however, the crystal frequency is independent of g.
Yes ok. But a quartz watch could nonetheless be used ok for a spinning-disc gravity experiment. In the experiment the g in the beam above the axis doesnt change directly, but the ticking does change, & it is the effect on ticking that we are looking for.
The change in the ticking results in an indirect apparent change in g in the beam, & if u are correct then the watch would not be affected by that change, however this would be a bonus, because if the watch were affected by g then it might negate the change in ticking that we are looking for (see?).
Thusly Podkletnov's use of a quartz watch is not a guarantee of getting a null result first time every time. A quartz watch will do the trick (except for all of the other inherent sources of possible systematic error that u mentioned).
-
Numbers, please.
-
Numbers, please.
If u watch all of Podkletnov's youtube stuff & articles u will see him give some numbers (for ticking dilation etc).
-
If u watch all of Podkletnov's youtube stuff & articles u will see him give some numbers (for ticking dilation etc).
It's your job to provide the numbers, not our so watch YT.
-
This would be an easy skool project. If i ever did a science experiment then this would be it. Centrifuging of aether is my pet theory.
Do it.
YOu will either learn and move on, or get a Nobel prize.
-
This would be an easy skool project. If i ever did a science experiment then this would be it. Centrifuging of aether is my pet theory.
Do it. YOu will either learn and move on, or get a Nobel prize.
I have worked in a laboratory. But this project needs lots of effort, even tho easy.
If the centrifuging of aether is real then it would explain the rings of Saturn. The equatorial inflow & circulation of aether would over time result in orbiting matter migrating to Saturn's equator, giving rings.
And, it would explain why the planets are in a sort of solar equatorial plane.
-
OK, so you can't do school level science experiments, and you don't understand why most of the planets are in the same plane.
Why should we take you seriously?
-
OK, so you can't do school level science experiments, and you don't understand why most of the planets are in the same plane. Why should we take you seriously?
Why are most planets in the same plane?
-
But this project needs lots of effort, even tho easy.
Apparently not. All you need is a wristwatch and a spinning disc. You have the numbers.
-
OK, so you can't do school level science experiments, and you don't understand why most of the planets are in the same plane. Why should we take you seriously?
I was thinking College level science moreso than senior skool or junior skool. I think i could do the spinning disc experiment. The axis of the disc should best be parallel to earth's spin-axis -- & the clock on the north side of the disc will tick more slowly than the clock on the south side -- then swap the clocks around as a double check. What are the most accurate wristwatches?
-
But this project needs lots of effort, even tho easy.
Apparently not. All you need is a wristwatch and a spinning disc. You have the numbers.
Yes see my other posting. I can get my hands on a couple of digital timers. What i need is a spinning disc, either small & fast or big & not so fast. Finding an existing disc already doing some sort of job would save electricity etc.
-
Try an exercise bicycle. Or a gramophone turntable with a weightlifter's 20 kg disc. Or just quote Podkletnov's numbers and I'll find or design something to replicate them.
The orientation shouldn't matter. Either spinning your disc alters the gravitational vector or time, or it doesn't.
-
Try an exercise bicycle. Or a gramophone turntable with a weightlifter's 20 kg disc. Or just quote Podkletnov's numbers and I'll find or design something to replicate them.
The orientation shouldn't matter. Either spinning your disc alters the gravitational vector or time, or it doesn't.
With the aetherwind orientation is everything.
At present Einsteinians have problems with lasers etc -- due to orientation -- & they havent got a clue.
-
Tell me about the laser problem. Mine work pretty well in all directins,to the extent that I can use them to navigate around the world in all directions.
But more importantly, let's have some numbers for your critical experiment. Dimensions and speed of the rotating mass, please, and the expected discrepancy in timing.
-
Tell me about the laser problem. Mine work pretty well in all directions,to the extent that I can use them to navigate around the world in all directions.
But more importantly, let's have some numbers for your critical experiment. Dimensions and speed of the rotating mass, please, and the expected discrepancy in timing.
I believe that lasers suffer from all sorts of problems (walkoff, variations, noise, etc). If u recognize that light travels at c+v & c-v when the background aetherwind is 500 kmps south to north 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis 4.5 hr RA (plus or minus 0.4 kmps of spin plus or minus 30 kmps of orbit) then u might overcome many problems, simply in the first instance by orientating your laser or clock or whatever on a consistent angle relative to the aetherwind, this would require that the laser be in addition gradually swung during 24 hrs (to keep a consistent angle).
Initially u might decide to orientate the laser such that it had a wind blowing squarely across with zero tailwind or headwind, or u might prefer a tailwind with zero crosswind, or u might prefer a headwind with zero crosswind. This could eliminate any change in angle of the wind.
But u would not be able to eliminate a change in magnitude of wind, the best that u could do is to have a wind of say 500 +- a change of say 2 kmps (not a big deal)(i think angle is more critical).
At present horizontal lasers at Obninsk if badly orientated might feel a wind that changes between 140 kmps & 480 kmps (thats a change of c/882) -- plus a change in wind angle of about 20 deg left to 20 deg right.
Re the experiment. I am not sure what would be better, a giant disc spinning at say 1000 rpm, or a small disc spinning at say 30,000 rpm. Orientation would be fairly important. The weaker the combination of mass & spin rate then the longer duration needed, 4 hrs should be ok.
Making a sandwich of many discs would be good, u might not need to have a dangerous rpm.
-
Just quote the numbers from Podkletnov's experiments, please.
-
Just quote the numbers from Podkletnov's experiments, please.
It's your job to provide the numbers, not our so watch YT.
OK, that's two of us asking, repeatedly, for the numbers.
Please provide them.
-
Just quote the numbers from Podkletnov's experiments, please.
It's your job to provide the numbers, not our so watch YT.
OK, that's two of us asking, repeatedly, for the numbers. Please provide them.
Ok sorry for my delay. Here is one.........
Weak gravitation shielding properties of composite bulkYBa2Cu3O7−x superconductor below 70K under e.m. field.
E.E. Podkletnov 1997
Abstract.
A high-temperature YBa2Cu3O7−x bulk ceramic superconductor with composite structure has revealed weak shielding properties against gravitational force while in a levitating state at temperatures below 70K. A toroidal disk with an outer diameter of 275mm and a thickness of 10mm was prepared using conventional ceramic technology in combination with melt-texture growth. Two solenoids were placed around the disk in order to initiate the current inside it and to rotate the disk about its central axis. Samples placed over the rotating disk initially demonstrated a weight loss of 0.3-0.5%. When the rotation speed was slowly reduced by changing the current in the solenoids, the shielding effect became considerably higher and reached 1.9% to 2.1% at maximum.
-
Here is another......... https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1875389211005803/1-s2.0-S1875389211005803-main.pdf?_tid=a4a6d683-186b-4102-a3c9-79fd427b0432&acdnat=1541228970_4672c99e680723a2c6a1e49e1d812aca
Reverse Engineering Podkletnov’s Experiments B. T. Solomon 2011
2. Podkletnov’s 1992 Paper
Figure 1 depicts a diagrammatic representation of Podkletnov’s 1992 experiment [10]. The two types of magnets are used. The toroidal magnet at the bottom was used to levitate the superconducting disk. The two magnets on the sides were used to spin the superconducting disk. The paper suggest that the magnetic fields from these magnets did not contribute to the observed weight loss of the silicon dioxide sample, as a 0.05% weight loss was observed when the superconducting disc was stationary. And test measurements without the superconducting shielding disk, but with all operating solenoids connected to the power supply had no effect on the weight of the sample. There are two important observations. First, observed weight loss of the silicon dioxide sample was 0.05% when the superconducting disc was stationary. And, second, at certain spin speeds the weight loss stabilized at 0.3%. These two observations inform us that the superconducting disc had gravity modifying properties before it was spun…………………
3. Podkletnov’s 1997 Paper
There are more details in Podkletnov’s 1997 paper (see Figure 3) and note several points with respect to the previous discussion of his 1992 paper. First, lateral forces are present. To quote the paper, “Because of considerable disc vibration at 3000-3300 rpm, the disc had to be rapidly braked in order to avoid unbalanced rotation . . .”. Second, the disc size was increased from a diameter of 145 mm to 275 mm. This would imply that the centripetal g-forces have increased to a maximum of 98 g’s. Third, the weight loss ranged between 0.3% and 0.5% (2007 email from Podkletnov) without disc spin but with an internal current in the ceramic. This would suggest that the internal current and the resulting magnetic field would have been a factor in the gravity shielding effect. And that somehow spin may amplify this shielding effect……………………………
Fourth, that when spinning, the weight loss is greater at the outer edge of the spinning toroidal disk, than at the inner edge. This would imply that this weight loss effect is some function of the radial distance from the center. From the perspective of a Ni field the tangential velocity due to spin could not create the necessary vertical Ni field as the spin velocity would not change along the vertical axis. However, the tangential velocity is changing along the radial axis of the disk, in the plane of the disk, and therefore the centripetal forces. Therefore, the spin tangential velocity Ni field is present in the plane of the disc but not orthogonal to it. A tangential velocity, however, would be a factor in the orthogonal Ni field if it changed (increased or decreased) along a vertical axis. If this were the phenomenon then it could match the experimental observations. And fifth, that something of the form of gravity shielding was in effect. One infers that weight loss was observed independently of the angle of the tilt of the spinning superconducting disk, or even the height of the sample above the disk. If this weight loss was a function of the orthogonal surface of the disk, there would be specific angles of tilt when weight loss would not be observed. This was not the case. Therefore, the weight loss was only aligned with the gravitational field and directly above the surface of the disc shielding the gravitational field. No weight loss was observed below the cryostat. See Figure 4. Thus the disc must have genuine shielding properties that align with the gravitational field. The rebuttal [15] that gravity shielding cannot be valid, is flawed in that it does not take into account that gravity is a vector field such that the horizontal vector components cancel leaving only the vertical vector component which cause downward accelerations…………………
This is an important observation. It informs us that gravity modification can take two forms. First is gravity modulation, the ability to attenuate (shield) or amplify (intensify) the field strength. This is reported in both [10, 11] papers. The second is the field vectoring, or a directed force field, the use of fields to change the direction of force. The sixth and most important point is that the ceramic disc consisted of two layers. The top layer was superconducting, while the bottom layer was not. The lesson from the Podkletnov’s 1992 paper is that the magnetic field has to be asymmetrical. The dual layer structure of the ceramic disc suggests a real possibility of this asymmetrical field structure. Figure 5 shows two of many possible magnetic field structures, top-side and bottom-side……………………
…………………….The stationary disc weight loss varied between 0.05% to 0.07% [11]. However, it is not clear at which radial, inner, outer or middle positions Podkletnov observed this 0.05% to 0.07% weight loss. Given that a superconducting magnetic field is essentially horizontal in the middle of the disc, would suggest that the weight loss was observed either on the outer or inner edges of the disc. The experimental layout would suggest that these measurements were observed on the outer edges of the superconducting disc.
-
Here is a good overview........
Gravity and Antigravity David Pratt
http://davidpratt.info/gravity.htm
-
Antigravity > Other antigravity machines and devices
Bruce DePalma - Inertial Field Experiment Pages: (1/1)
andros:
Stefan (et al),
You may recall me from the days I served as Bruce DePalma's personal secretary from 1988-1997. Many years have passed since his untimely death, and I continue to be possessed by a sense of loyalty to his work and memory.
In short, I strongly encourage anyone in the field of science & technology to pursue the replication of this pioneering experiment conducted originally by DePalma:
Appendix 1 - 18 June 1975 Simple Experimental Test for the Inertial Field of a Rotating Real Mechanical Object
(from: http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity09/NatureOfElectricalInduction.html)
Introduction: For the last five years, this investigator and others1, have studied the mechanical properties of rotating objects for the purpose of application of certain heretofore undiscovered properties of rotation to new forms of propulsion machinery and machines with anti-gravitational effect. The course of this investigator has not been to try to perfect new propulsion machinery, per se, but however to thoroughly investigate the phenomena of rotation.
The result of a great deal of experimentation (see appendix), has resulted in a picture which relates the performance of certain non-conventional machinery: Dean, Laithwaite, Wolfe, DePalma, to a variable inertia property which can be engendered through motion of a rotating object.
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 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 (odd) 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)
http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity09/nature5.jpg
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.
Much experimentation has shown that the effect is greatest with the position of the tuning fork as shown. Magnetic effects from leakage fields from the gyro drive motors are almost entirely absent; any remaining leakage is removed by co-netic magnetic shielding. The Accutron is also in a "non-magnetic" envelope.
The purpose of the experiment is a simple demonstration of one of the effects of the od field of a rotating object. The demonstration may easily be repeated using any one of a variety of rotating objects, motor flywheels, old gyrocompasses, etc. The rotating mass of the flywheels used in these experiments is 29 1/2 pounds. The rotational speed of 7600 r.p.m. is easily accessible. The effect is roughly proportional to the radius and mass of the rotating object and to the square of the rotational speed.
Finer measurements can be made using an external electrically powered tuning fork oscillator and an electronic frequency counter. In this case the inertial anisotropy of the od field of a rotating object can be much more quickly and precisely measured. Field strength lines can be plotted along contours of constant frequency shift for the two orientation conditions of fork vibration direction parallel to, and perpendicular to, the axis of rotation of the test object.
Conclusions and Observations: The proper conclusions and evaluations of the above experiment will affect present conceptions of Cosmology. Before this can happen, simple tests must be performed to show the existence of a new phenomenon. It is hoped the apparatus for the performance of these tests is widely enough available to lead to quick verification.
Bruce DePalma
-
OK, looking at the first one, they talk about a 2% change in mass. I could measure that with my kitchen scales.
It would be a fairly easy experiment to set up for any university lab.
So why hasn't it been repeated?
-
OK, looking at the first one, they talk about a 2% change in mass. I could measure that with my kitchen scales.
It would be a fairly easy experiment to set up for any university lab. o why hasn't it been repeated?
Yes, why?