illuusio Posted August 24, 2012 Author Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) I'm impressed, illuusio has provided us with two different methods of blocking gravity... That's fantastic news, flight will become so much cheaper. Or his explanations of why the experiments preformed do not make any sense when compared with what we observe... I'll let you decide that one. It's good that this is not only matter of fate. Everyone can test it at home. With better resources you can test it in vacuum. Flights getting cheaper, for sure, at least for space flights. NASA did have a research project in early 2000 with Ning Li and other scientists. They failed, partially because different interests. NASA wanted application and Ning Li wanted to understand how anti-gravitation actually works. Few millions burnt and life goes on. Edited August 24, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Illusio, Run and hide! For roughly a hundred years mankind has been looking for a way to breach that conservation of energy and , together with Klaynos' interpretation (well, one of them anyway) you have done it. You have (it seems) solved the energy crisis. All I need to power my home is a flywheel connected to a generator. If I put a couple of business cards under one side of the wheel they will shield it from gravity. So the other side will be heavier and will fall. Of course, as they fall they will come into the "shielded" area in turn so the net effect will be to turn the wheel continuously. I can collect all the power I need from that magic gravity wheel. But your problem is different. All the world's leaders depend on having an established "system" in place to control their minions. One examples of that is the government's ability to tax things like electricity. The usual conspiracy theory is that ideas like this are stamped out by the oil industry but the reality is that they never happen. The laws of thermodynamics see to that. Since your discovery that a couple of bits of cardboard can shield gravity, we no longer need to use the conventional sources of power like oil. We can produce our own. The political consequences are astounding. But I fear that you r discovery will cause great fear among those in power. In the end it will be the salvation of mankind but most politicians are too "short termist" to understand that. You need to hide. Long Live the Revolution! p.s. I'm kidding. You have not broken the laws of physics and you don't really need to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) Since your discovery that a couple of bits of cardboard can shield gravity, we no longer need to use the conventional sources of power like oil. We can produce our own. p.s. I'm kidding. You have not broken the laws of physics and you don't really need to hide. Heh, funny one! But to be axact, cardboard can't shield gravity, it shields only from modifications of ether. It's like you put yourself into large plastic bag, you still experience gravitation, right? btw. don't be too long in that bag Talking about conspiracy, where is Ning Li now??? Edited August 25, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 ! Moderator Note illuusio, please stop opening other threads to advertise this one, or you will be suspended or banned from the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 ! Moderator Note illuusio, please stop opening other threads to advertise this one, or you will be suspended or banned from the forum. Yes Sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I think that there was a little yips on orientation of driller and that caused test object's movement away from driller. With attached driller you get very nice phenomenon without any unwanted movements. But as you can see, I managed to balance that harmonic motion at last. Covering rotating part with something smoother, like duct tape, will improve phenomenon. If you want even better result you can attach small metal ball into driller. And ofcourse, best result is achieved in vacuum. Post the experiment done in the vacuum, please, it achieves a greater effect of demonstrating your theorem, showing that it isn't air flow that saved your theory from failing. You still haven't explained how your theorem fails to explain the gravitational force caused by things that are not rotating. e.g. you jumping and falling on to the ground when you are not rotating with respect to the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) Post the experiment done in the vacuum, please, it achieves a greater effect of demonstrating your theorem, showing that it isn't air flow that saved your theory from failing. You still haven't explained how your theorem fails to explain the gravitational force caused by things that are not rotating. e.g. you jumping and falling on to the ground when you are not rotating with respect to the Earth. Well, I don't have a vacuum pump so doing that is out of question at a moment. Air flow is just a problem. With heavier objects you don't need that much rotation frequence to get the effect. You did see the test with a bike's wheel, air flow was too much. With driller (50 rps) effect was ok. With smoother (less air flow) rotating part the effect is greater. Vacuum is naturally the best option. BUT, when generating lifting force with rotating objects air flow is actually helpful. mmm... jumping, but you are on Earth. Earth is rotating and therefore generates pulling force (gravitation). Edited August 25, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) Well, I don't have a vacuum pump so doing that is out of question at a moment. Air flow is just a problem. With larger objects you don't need that much rotation frequence to get the effect. You did see the test with a bike's wheel, air flow was too much. With driller (50 rps) effect was ok. With smoother (less air flow) rotating part the effect is greater. Vacuum is naturally the best option. BUT, when generating lifting force with rotating objects air flow is actually helpful. mmm... jumping, but you are on Earth. Earth is rotating and therefore generates pulling force (gravitation). Problem is, air flow is ( I'm thinking along the lines of Bernoulli's principle, fast moving wing causes lift) what saves you from seeing that rotating objects don't generate gravity. Yes, earth is rotating. But not with respect to you. All laws of physics are valid in any frame of reference, including yours. Do you observe the earth rotate with respect to you? Edited August 25, 2012 by Mellinia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 Problem is, air flow is ( I'm thinking along the lines of Bernoulli's equation) what saves you from seeing that rotating objects don't generate gravity. Yes, earth is rotating. But not with respect to you. All laws of physics are valid in any frame of reference, including yours. Do you observe the earth rotate with respect to you? I haven't said that Earth rotates respect to you. The point is that Earth rotates. Rotation generates pulling effect due to Magnus effect in ether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I don't see how a small airflow from the tire could overcome 15N. You also seem to be making stuff up, either the cards did or didn't block the "magnus" changing your mind makes you seem even less believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I haven't said that Earth rotates respect to you. The point is that Earth rotates. Rotation generates pulling effect due to Magnus effect in ether. Einstein proved that all laws of physics are applicable in any reference frame. If you can measure gravity when you're jumping from the earth(which is not rotating with respect to you.), then gravity is there when you fall down from jumping. The point Earth rotates, in your theory only holds applicable to something that saw it rotate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 Einstein proved that all laws of physics are applicable in any reference frame. If you can measure gravity when you're jumping from the earth(which is not rotating with respect to you.), then gravity is there when you fall down from jumping. The point Earth rotates, in your theory only holds applicable to something that saw it rotate. Problem is that some current ideas in physics are a bit wrong. My theory is completely provable, it's not matter of fate, you can validate it. I don't see how a small airflow from the tire could overcome 15N. You also seem to be making stuff up, either the cards did or didn't block the "magnus" changing your mind makes you seem even less believable. Small airflow But in my experiment with reduced airflow, pulling effect is visible. With even smoother surfaced object result is even better. You can test it by yourself, dare you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) Problem is that some current ideas in physics are a bit wrong. My theory is completely provable, it's not matter of fate, you can validate it. It was proved mathematically. In fact, if it was wrong, I could find a frame of reference that your theory isn't working. The point is, they tried to prove your theory, and they failed. You should try proving it, though. By the way, try attracting a round pencil covered in Vaseline around the middle part with your driller and post the video. Be sure to show us the rps of the driller... Edited August 25, 2012 by Mellinia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 It was proved mathematically. In fact, if it was wrong, I could find a frame of reference that your theory isn't working. The point is, they tried to prove your theory, and they failed. You should try proving it, though. By the way, try attracting a round pencil covered in Vaseline around the middle part with your driller and post the video. They tried they failed. I did show how to do it The test object was round plastic stick (some kind of knitting thing), so it's smoother than common pencil. Aaa... don't use vaseline! It will be all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) They tried they failed. I did show how to do it The test object was round plastic stick (some kind of knitting thing), so it's smoother than common pencil. Aaa... don't use vaseline! It will be all over the place. How much was the rps? http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lift_force and http://en.wikipedia....i/Magnus_effect I do fear by increasing the speed of the air between the thing and the driller actually causes a region of low pressure between them and the plastic was pushed in by the air pressure. using vaseline greatly decreases the friction between air and the pencil has quite the weight. Edited August 25, 2012 by Mellinia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 How much was the rps? http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lift_force and http://en.wikipedia....i/Magnus_effect I do fear by increasing the speed of the air between the thing and the driller actually causes a region of low pressure between them and the plastic was pushed in by the air pressure. I think it was 50 rps. Well, It's all about Magnus effect! BUT this Magnus effect happens in force transfer ether (FTE). My experiment can be done in vacuum where Magnus effect with air is irrelevant, actually test performs even better in vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I think it was 50 rps. Well, It's all about Magnus effect! BUT this Magnus effect happens in force transfer ether (FTE). My experiment can be done in vacuum where Magnus effect with air is irrelevant, actually test performs even better in vacuum. The Magnus effect also happens in air. dude. 50rps?! no wonder it flew to the driller. Well...you did say you did not manage to do the experiment, so I can't really accept the actually test performs even better in vacuum. part. And so we put aside the fact that gravity occurs between non-rotating objects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 This came up before — why is the moon's gravity 1/6 of the earth? The moon rotates about once a month, the earth once a day. That's off by a factor of 5. You also run into a problem with Newton's third law, since the force the earth exerts on the moon won't be the same as what the moon exerts on the earth. And then there's the inertial vs gravitational mass issue, with all the experiments that confirm they are the same to a reasonable level of precision. One video showing a poorly-executed experiment with ambiguous (at best) results isn't much, going up against the weight of evidence confirming gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 The Magnus effect also happens in air. dude. 50rps?! no wonder it flew to the driller. Well...you did say you did not manage to do the experiment, so I can't really accept the part. And so we put aside the fact that gravity occurs between non-rotating objects? You think that Magnus effect works better with smoother object? Actually with rough high rotating object, effect is poorer. And with large massed ball, effect is great without high rotation frequence. Do you understand? No need for big rotation frequence -> no air induced Magnus effect. Got it? This came up before — why is the moon's gravity 1/6 of the earth? The moon rotates about once a month, the earth once a day. That's off by a factor of 5. You also run into a problem with Newton's third law, since the force the earth exerts on the moon won't be the same as what the moon exerts on the earth. And then there's the inertial vs gravitational mass issue, with all the experiments that confirm they are the same to a reasonable level of precision. One video showing a poorly-executed experiment with ambiguous (at best) results isn't much, going up against the weight of evidence confirming gravity. Problem with Moon is the mass. Moon mass is derived with Newtonian gravitation law. And as I have told before, G ain't constant. Moon mass is much bigger in reality than calculated. I think I can manage some University do the test in vacuum here in Finland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) You think that Magnus effect works better with smoother object? Actually with rough high rotating object, effect is poorer. And with large massed ball, effect is great without high rotation frequence. Do you understand? No need for big rotation frequence -> no air induced Magnus effect. Got it? I gotcha. Actually, Magnus effect works irregardless of the surface in mention and the object spinning experiences it, not the object outside it. Big rotation frequency --> high velocity of air around --> Lift force. Does your theory work with massless particles? Wait...effect is great with large mass ball? Can I see it? But then again, wouldn't gravitational force affect it(I meant Newton's) Edited August 25, 2012 by Mellinia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 I gotcha. Actually, Magnus effect works irregardless of the surface in mention and the object spinning experiences it, not the object outside it. Big rotation frequency --> high velocity of air around --> Lift force. Does your theory work with massless particles? Wait...effect is great with large mass ball? Can I see it? But then again, wouldn't gravitational force affect it(I meant Newton's) Theory works also with "massless" particles. Obviously there is mass, but it's just too damn small to detect currently (like photons). I don't have bigger setup available anymore. I think that I save my money to University which runs the test in vacuum, so everybody is happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Theory works also with "massless" particles. Obviously there is mass, but it's just too damn small to detect currently (like photons). I don't have bigger setup available anymore. I think that I save my money to University which runs the test in vacuum, so everybody is happy. Um, there is a reason why there photons have no rest mass. You could try this: fill a glass cube half with water. Boil off the water. The steam would drive out the air. After the water is nearly used up, closed up the cube and allow it to cool. You now have a near-vacuum. Test your experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 Um, there is a reason why there photons have no rest mass. You could try this: fill a glass cube half with water. Boil off the water. The steam would drive out the air. After the water is nearly used up, closed up the cube and allow it to cool. You now have a near-vacuum. Test your experiment. How can I put driller and test object into that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 How can I put driller and test object into that? An aquarium works, i think. Any enclosed space strong enough to hold atmospheric pressure...English miners used that technique for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 Hmm... I did an experiment with the same test object and same drill, BUT this time through ~3mm wall. Wall size was roughly 1 m^2. EFFECT IS STILL THERE !!! I try to manage to create a video during this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts