Two Simple Experiments that Violate Known Physics

This is just a curve ball.

A rotating ball has more drag on one side than the other, and works as an airfoil.

If you can do this in a vacuum it will start to be interesting.

This effect is used in basebase, tennis, soccer and a lot of other games.

Gyroscopes are a fundamental component in many instruments and guidance systems. Being of critical importance to weaponry and navigation, they have being studied in enormous amount of detail, using sophisticated math, which was also verified by experiment. Even a tiniest unusual effect would have been noticed a long time ago. Since it didn't happen, I say that the rotating ball bearing experiment in the OP is bunk.

reply to post by rich23


The spinning balls, aerodynamics etc is the area I currently work in.

A smooth ball like a ball bearing will generate very little lift aerodynamically and its low airspeed after launch will minimise this even further.

At first glance it would appear that the ball is using some of its spin to climb the wall of the cup, adding slightly to its launch velocity.

The ball bearing experiment isn't good enough to tell any differenece to be honest.

Angular momentum is converted and causes the bearing to maintain a steeper trajectory. It goes further up because it has more energy.

It does not fall slower.

Measure the distance between the points for the spinning ball and for the non-spinning ball. They increase in distance by the exact same amount after the apex. Since one starts falling first it will begin to accelerate first. Just grab something and measure it on your monitor. Corresponding distance between dots after the apex of each curve grow in size at the same rate. One does not grow faster.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by garritynet]

[edit on 1-3-2010 by garritynet]

I think I know why this experiment works.

I do not think it would work if the steel ball bearings were plastic.

There is an effect called the Barnett effect when a magnetizable material is rotated with sufficient speed it causes the magnetizable material to generate a magnetic field.

It is the interaction of the magnetic field created by the Barnett effect from the spinning ball bearing interacting with the spinning mass of the ball bearing that is affecting the speed in which the steel ball bearing falls.

Extended Heim theory posits that when magnetic fields interact with rotating masses that gravitophoton pairs are created (gravitational force and expansion force) and the rotating mass absorbs the gravitational force gravitophotons resulting in a dent in spacetime. If the magnetic field was closer to the bottom of the ball bearing then a force upwards parallel to the axis of rotation would act on the ball bearing.

reply to post by rich23


Please someone do this and post the vid!!!!!

reply to post by rich23


Sorry I haven't had the chance to read the whole thread but this is actually an area I have been studying for a while now.

The warping of space-time occurs when relativistic mass is converted into momentum.

This was proven recently with the following experiment -

Gravity Probe-B

Gravity Probe B is an experiment being developed by NASA and Stanford University to test two unverified predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. The experiment will check, very precisely, tiny changes in the direction of spin of four gyroscopes contained in a satellite in a 650 km polar orbit.. The gyroscopes will measure how space and time are warped by the presence of the Earth, and, more profoundly, how the Earth's rotation drags space-time around with it. These effects, though small for the Earth, have far-reaching implications for the nature of matter and the structure of the Universe.

In a nutshell, there is a phenomenon called frame dragging, when a mass spins it warps (drags) space-time around it.

Although complex maths is required to understand the actual effect, it can be visualised easily.... Image a swimming pool filled with oil. Now image spinning a metal ball about a meter in diameter to around 2000 rpm. now image that ball is placed in the pool of oil. The oil will warp around the ball being dragged along with inertia that the ball exerts on the surrounding fluid... Now to balance the equation the ball slows down.

Now image this in open space. The ball would seem to spin forever right? Well actually no... Frame Dragging has proven that over time the energies have to balance and as such the spin of the ball decreases due to the relativistic effects of Frame Dragging.

How does this relate to a difference in angle in your first experiment??

Due to Relativity the reality is there is no curve, both balls travel in a straight line, only the ball that spins travels further due to the increased space-time it has to travel through due to the frame drag effect.

This represents itself as a differential in curve on your graph.

Relativity is such a beautiful concept... If you were to shrink yourself down so you could stand on the ball bearings... if you were to stand on the ball bearing that was spinning... you would not experience a spin, just everything else would spin. however you would experience gravity, which would be caused by the mass's warping of space-time (the curvature of space-time)

This is all true if you subscribe to the standard model of physics.

Hope this helps,

All the best,

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

you would not experience a spin, just everything else would spin

What about centripetal force? Everything with mass that spins on earth experiences a force that throws the mass away from the center of the spin.

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by harrytuttle

 

If you look at the original photograph, you'll note that the spinning ball bearing actually falls slower than the other one. This is quite clearly visible because the stroboscopic images come at the same interval, and the last few show the control travelling further than the spinning bearing.
[edit on 23-2-2009 by rich23]

you are delusional.


this is a very stupid experiment..i mean cups...drills...TURNING UPSIDE DON..

dumb and dumber.

unnecessary complexity..

all you need to do is measure one ball bearings fall time...then a spinning ball bearings fall time.

OVER THE SAME DISTANCE...

NO NEED FOR CUPS AND STROBOSCOPES.

Originally posted by rich23
And just to be really clear on this...

Both ball-bearings were in containers attached to the same drill.

The upward force was applied to the drill.

Therefore the same force was applied to both ball-bearings, surely?


[edit on 24-2-2009 by rich23]

If they came out of the cup in an ideal fashion. Meaning they didnt meet any resistance or bump around.

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

It doesn't say anything about how the ball bearing should rest inside the cup. This in my opinion by itself could make any results worthless. The balls have to come out in exactly the same way. The way each ball leaves the cup could affect both initial velocity and trajectory.

This experiment should be done entirely mechanicaly in a vacuum, with one cup and one ball, once spinning and once not. Otherwise the data is useless in terms of any kind of precision.

And why does the magnus effect not explain this? Because there is no evidence of a reproduction "in vacuo" I don't think there is much of a case. Then again it's only my opinion.

The air travels faster relative to the centre of the ball where the periphery of the ball is moving in the same direction as the airflow. This reduces the pressure, according to Bernouilli's principle. The opposite effect happens on the other side of the ball, where the air travels slower relative to the centre of the ball. There is therefore an imbalance in the forces and the ball deflects. This lateral deflection of a ball in flight is generally known as the "Magnus effect".

[edit on 3-3-2010 by constantwonder]

Originally posted by Bordon81
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

you would not experience a spin, just everything else would spin

What about centripetal force? Everything with mass that spins on earth experiences a force that throws the mass away from the centre of the spin.

Ahhhh the great ~Vector Math I love so well

Actually my analogy was not to be taken literally, it was to demonstrate relativity.

And to experience centripetal force you need at least two gravitational interactions. In a nutshell... centripetal force is a 'need' for lack of a better word for matter to travel in a straight line.

So when you track the trajectory of an object that has had an energy interaction e.g. spin rather than spin along with it the matter will always travel the shortest distance to dissipate the energy Ergo a #Straight line.

Hope this helps,

All the best,

Korg.

reply to post by rich23


Looking back through my data I actually have lift and drag data for a smooth steel ball 42mm in diameter in a wind tunnel for wind velocities of 5 to 100m/s against 0 to 14,000rpm in 500rpm increments. Strain guages were used on the rig to measure force in all directions. I also have the data for most sports balls.

No unexpected results were obtained with the steel ball which pretty much goes against the results of the experiment in the OP. There certainly wasn't enough lift produced for any noticable aerodynamic lift.