Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82043
  • *Latest: brf69

  • *Total Posts: 493992
  • *Total Topics: 14517
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 64
  • *Total: 68

Facebook

Author Topic: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff  (Read 20021 times)

Offline Radical Ryan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« on: January 16, 2013, 01:59:33 PM »
Here's an idea I've had for a while about why the Explorer I rocket in 1958 went far higher than Von Braun had expected, as Richard Hoagland described on his site enterprisemission.com.  My explanation is so simple I'm almost surprised Von Braun was stumped by the problem for so long, except that he was mired in rocket equations.  I think I have thought of something that is either kept secret by the space agencies because they don't want to admit their top scientists were confused, or it's just so simple that the establishment overlooked it.  It has to do not only with Explorer I going "too high", but also the Russian mission that "overshot" the moon, and the space probes that go "too far" away from the sun to be accounted for, or that gain "a little more" velocity than expected from their gravity fly-by sling-shot maneuvers.

As Richard Hoagland said, it does have something to do with rotation (and of course gyroscopes, because gyroscopes rotate).  Hoagland seems to think that rotation somehow pulls in extra energy from the 4th spatial dimension.  He's into hyperdimensional physics.  That's his whole gig.  But I don't think hyperdimensional physics, nor rotation per se, is required to explain the "extra energy".

Any object that contains internal motion, whether through rotating gyroscopes, swinging pendulums, heat, or even circulating fluid, will experience orbital "anomalies" and here's why:  Objects don't orbit; particles do.  This is pretty simple.  It's the same reason gyroscopes "work".  Objects don't follow Newton's laws; particles do.   Taken as an object, the gyroscope "defies the laws of physics".  However, considering it's internal motion, i.e. the motion of its particles, gyroscopic motion makes perfect sense.  In the same sense, even though Explorer I as an object shouldn't have gone that high, if you follow the orbital path of each of its particles, it makes sense.  Every particle is in an orbit at each instant.  Orbits are altered through collisions, energy is exchanged, but angular momentum remains the same.  This is happening all the time to every particle, even those in "stationary" solids, liquids, and gases, including within the Earth itself.  It's all orbit, maintained through the conservation of angular momentum.  What we think of as "non-celestial" is really how things move when they keep colliding in orbit.  Like the ground, for example.  When you stand on it, you are a celestial body that keeps colliding with it.  Your body at each instant wants to fall in an elliptical path starting off for an instant eastward with the rotation of the earth and then dropping sharply downward immediately after.  Luckily it is met by particles within the ground that are coming back the other way, in vibrations of heat, which push your body back in the opposite direction.  Everything on the Earth that seems gridlocked or "stationary" is constantly exchanging orbital energy with other particles in the form of heat.  The average orbital velocity in any large enough "statonary" object is always about zero (if you subtract the average eastward velocity due to the Earth's rotation for that latitude), but if you zoom in close enough you can see Brownian motion, or even closer, heat, which is where all matter behaves celestially even if "resting on earth."  Nature doesn't make up different rules depending on whether the particles are in space or "moving with the Earth."

You spin a rocket about the vertical axis, and each particle is going to gain some horizontal velocity.  This means that the average particle within a spinning rocket has a different orbit than a particle within a non-spinning rocket.  The orbit of a "stationary" particle is highly eccentric, and would pass straight through the center of the Earth, if let free fall, save for the Earth's eastward rotation, and the heat the particle carries. 

So back to Explorer I's spin on its vertical axis.  The average particle in the spinning rocket has a horizontal velocity faster than that in a non-spinning rocket.  Thus each particle's instantaneous orbital path, on average, stays more horizontal for longer than those in a non-spinning rocket.  You can see this easily if you see that the orbital ellipse is longer in the horizontal direction when you "let go" of an object with horizontal velocity.  But the orbital path of the particles in the non-spinning rocket curve almost straight down very fast (follow a very thin ellipse going almost straight down very soon).  And if the Earth were not spinning and they had no heat, their orbital ellipse would actually be a straight line down.  Of course, there is some baseline heat in both rockets (presumably vibrating equally in all directions), and the eastward spin of the Earth that complicate the details.  But the general principle is the same:  Add internal motion, at all, and the rocket's orbital behavior will change.  (By definition it would be counterbalanced by other internal motion with opposite momentum, leading to no external motion or use of a propellant).  Add HORIZONTAL internal motion as an independent variable, and the rocket will certainly react differently to vertical forces than  a rocket "in the control group."  (It's not really "anistropy of space" or "varaible inertia" at work here as Hoagland and DePalma, respectively, suggest.  It's just the orbital path of a whole object being changed by alterating the "sum" orbital path of its particles.)

Now consider what happens as the spinning rocket starts to go up.  Actual speed of each particle is a combination of its vertical velocity and its horizontal velocity.  (Square root of the sum of the squares, since the two are perpendicular).   The particles in a  spinning rocket, gaining velocity not only from their vertical motion but also from the spin of the rocket, can be seen to have longer orbital ellipses.  The apogee (highest orbital altitude) of each particle in the upward-moving and spinning rocket has a higher altitude than the apogee in the rocket that is moving up at the same speed but not spinning.   Both rockets, if thrust were shut off completely at the same velocity and altitude, would continue on up to the altitude of its particles' average apogee.  This will be higher for the spinning rocket than for a non-spinning one, because the apogee of any particle with a horizontal velocity COMBINED WITH an upward velocity, will be higher than the apogee of a particle with only the upward velocity and no horiztonal velocity.  (Whichever one has the greater velocity at the same altitude will have a higher apogee.)  Likewise if a spinning rocket is going down.  But if it is going down, it falls down towards an imaginary apogee on the other side of the Earth that it will not reach before crashing to the ground.  Keep in mind that in the spinning rocket (assuming it's moving straight up), the horizontal velocity is kept all bottled up inside the rocket's spin.  This does not mean, however, that the average particle's "desire" to reach the altitude of its apogee will be diminished at all (even if as the rocket passes through the "plane" of all the average apogees).  Similarly, the particles within a gyroscope do not seem to know or even care that their motion is running in cycles, aiming for location far "outside" the gyroscope and dragging that part of the wheel accordingly.  All they seem to know is their instantaneous momentum.

This explains Dr. Bruce DePalma's "spinning ball" experiment.  The particles within the spinning ball have different orbital paths than "stationary" objects.  They happily rise farther and fall faster as they race toward the altitude (or negative altitude in the case of downward motion) of their particles' average apogee.

Of course, you will have to give up Newton's theory of gravity, and thus Einstein's inescapable black holes (you could escape a black hole in a rotating rocket, or fall into one faster than the speed of light).  All you need is the conservation of angular momentum.   It's not gravity or anti-gravity that's existing here.  It's just the conservation of angular momentum.  Newton always thought there was gravity because the trajectories he saw were always so downward and so quick, he didn't know they were orbits being corrected by the ground (whose individual particles are also in orbit at each instant and corecting one another in a gridlocked lattice).

When you consider that the Earth is rotating eastward, counterclockwise when looking down in the North, some latitudes have a considerable amount of eastward motion "built-in" that will influence the instantaeous velocity of particles in a spinning rocket.  But it's the velocity of the average particle that counts, as the rocket is taken as a whole object.  This does not mean, however, that the rotation of the earth is cancelled out in a linear relationship as a particle oscillates in the east-west direction within the rocket as the whole rocket goes eastward.  Though the rate of increase in effect is positive at all increases in rate of spin (because there are 4 cardinal directions, west being only 1 of them) it hits a minimum when the average westward momentum of particles going straight west is equal to the eastward velocity of the earth's spin at that latitude.  Then as the rocket spins even faster than that, the rate of increase in the effect is higher than the rate of increase in spin, but less and less so until the Earth's eastward velocity is negligible compared to the rocket's average internal westward motion.   In other words, more spin is more effect, but less and less so, until more spin is even more effect, but ever so slightly less so, as it asymptotically approaches a 1:1 relationship between change in spin and a change effect as the earth's spin because negligible.

This leads to one easy solution to free energy:  Spin a disc, lift it up, brake its spin into a generator until it nearly stops, let it drop, and get energy out of it's fall.  Repeat.  It would be as if the power company keeps sending you golden eggs through the wires, and instead of pumping them right back to the ground to extract energy out of their flow through the circuit, you take a section of the wire they are in, and put the gold up for loan at interest before sending it back.  You can always say you've got that length of wire "on deposite" as long as the power is flowing.  Then use the interest to buy more wire and more power.

In other words, use power to do something "non-Newtonian", get energy out of the non-Newtonian effect, and then sell the power right back.

Note:  The Biefield-Brown effect uses the same principle.  Although it DOES USE electrical wind, and does not work alone in a vacuum, the gains in velocity are more than can be expected through ion-wind thrust alone.  That's because you have squeezed large amounts of internal motion into the electron orbitals of the negative plate.  (Not just the energy of them being in there as though in a normal atomic orbit counterbalanced in charged, but more protons, but you've also added in the energy it took to squeeze them all in there without adding more protons, and squeeze goes right into internal motion.)  The tightly squeezed electron orbitals give a boost to the ion-wind lift (or drop).  The Biefield-Brown effect won't work in a vacuum, but non-Newtonian effects will be observed on the negative plate whenever it is charged up and pushed.

I have explained why Explorer I and DePalma's spinning ball went "too high" and a possible explanation of the Biefield-Brown effect.  These are fairly easy examples to see because they involve actual circular paths of motion. 

When we apply these same principles to gridlocked motion, it will get spooky.  I can explain the Allais pendulum effect (pendulums precessing backwards during an eclipse) pretty easily, using only the principles of heat and the spin of the Earth,  but it requires the application of orbital paths to "gridlocked heat," or the motion within stationary objects. 

Furthermore I can explain how the Joe Cell, possibly the Pyramids,  and other kinds of "orgone accumulators" work even though they seem not to move, pretty easily, by applying the principles of orbital motion to "gridlocked heat" and the Corriolis effect. And why, given the diferent heat conductances of land masses, water, and air, why there is an "Earth grid" that shapes and is shaped by the location of the continents.  And of course, it has to do with Coral Castle.  And the fact that magnets are related to spin.  How not all heat is equal, and some forms can allow for the very easy cutting of stone in certain directions, and different speeds of light through the same space in different directions.  Heat behaves far more intricately with the spin of the Earth and different speeds of conductance, and is much more involved with the phenomenon of so-called "gravity" than popular thermodynamics describes.

Let me know if anyone would be interested in discussing more...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TechStuf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
    • Biblical Record Proves True
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2013, 01:21:28 AM »



So, by your reasoning, is there a qualitative difference between 'orbital momentum' and 'spin momentum'?




TS

Offline Radical Ryan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2013, 09:12:18 AM »
That depends on the velocity involved.   DePalma and others focus on angular momentum, which I think is wise, unless you start thinking in terms of orbit.  Then it's velocity that is the far more important factor.   Whether you're putting a moon or a pea into orbit, it's the velocity that counts?  (Although the energy expended to reach that velocity will differ greatly.) 

If the spin of the particle means it actually contains internal motion, then it's orbit would be affected.  But if the particle has no size, then nothing can move around inside it, internal velocity cannot be achieved through spin, and orbit cannot be altered accordingly.  So, in the case of a particle of zero size, there would be a qualitative difference, I believe.

I would also like to correct myself regarding the "race towards the altitude of the average particles' apogee" through this thought experiment.  Imagine you have a spinning disc, rotating at astronomical speed.  It will NOT shoot up, even though its average particles' apogee is somewhere off just slightly below the horizon, and "high" out above sea level, considering the rotation is extremely fast.  However, if PUSHED up ever so slightly, that ORBITAL path of each particle, on average, will shoot up ABOVE the horizon before curving downward, and it is that average orbital path, that the rocket strives to follow.  Thus the spinning rocket will shoot up when pushed up, opposed NOT by a downward force of "1 g of gravity" but rather against the force it would take to change the shape of the average particles' orbit.  The race is NOT towards an the altitude of an apogee (they're all scattered nearly circularly about the horizon).  But the rocket's sum total of its particles' orbital behavior is definitely changed by the rotating of the rocket.  And thus the orbital path of the rocket itself, taken as an object, will seem to be "non-Newtonian."

Of course, the rocket's rotation doesn't have to be so astronomically high for the effect to take place.   Actually it is the ratio between upward velocity of the rocket, and the horizontal velocity of the average particle, that would determine how much the rocket's orbital behavior is "altered" by the spin.








Offline TechStuf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
    • Biblical Record Proves True
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2013, 11:53:44 AM »



Quote
But if the particle has no size, then nothing can move around inside it, internal velocity cannot be achieved through spin, and orbit cannot be altered accordingly.  So, in the case of a particle of zero size, there would be a qualitative difference, I believe.




Speaking of spin, my head is now spinning.  It's making me.....




Dizzy.






Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1556
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2013, 05:14:53 PM »
Let me know if anyone would be interested in discussing more...

I would be interested in an experiment which can prove your point. Words are cheap, we need facts that could be verified empirically.

Greetings, Conrad


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2013, 05:14:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Radical Ryan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2013, 04:30:49 AM »
Check Bruce DePalma's spinning ball experiment.  This can be easily duplicated.

Check the orbital paths of Explorer I and some of the earlier Russian attempts to crash into the moon.  They all experienced an "inexplicable" boost in orbit.

Consider also where the burden lies in who has to show who what.  What assumptions do we have that we think are bolstered by the scientific facts, when experiments haven't actually been done to prove it (just cheap talk)?  That a non-spinning object will behave the same as a spinning one is one such assumption, I think, until you actually look at the data.  Why would one assume that spinning a rocket WOULDN'T affect its orbit?  One might also assume that a gyroscope will not precess until seeing it or learning about it.  I venture to guess that we ALL have to LEARN at some point that a spinning wheel has some "unexpected" behavior (not built into babies).  Likewise, the spinning rockets DID experience some "anomalous" orbits.  Maybe it's time to update our assumptions likewise with the spinning rockets as we did with gyroscopes. 

I thought and thought about the DATA for a long time before I ventured to theorize what was actually happening.   This idea took not so cheap effort. 

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2533
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2013, 05:03:25 PM »
  If a thermalized atom is ionized with x number of high frequency photons the free electrons carry both the original momentum of the atom plus the electron orbital momentum.  Upon encountering a magnetic field the free electron momentum is altered.  The photons emitted are in excess of the photons invested to ionize the atom.  An anology:  A truck full of rocks is speeding down the highway,   A tree limb brushes the top of the pile of rocks and 4 rocks fall from the truck.  The rocks roll down the highway until they get to a curve in the road.  They leave the roadway and crash into a car parked along side the highway on the curve.   Damage to car is far in excess then just brushing it with the tree limb.
   We can get a hook on  thermalized atoms by phase changing them to plasma.  Plasma will react to electric and magnetic fields whereas neutral atoms in motion (heat) do not.  This process is in agreement with all thermodynamic laws it is just that the degradation of the heat is not reliant on random process.  A roadway is established through a sector of space allowing for ordered degradation of a chaotic state.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2013, 05:03:25 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1781
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2013, 05:02:18 AM »
Fascinating information!   Thanks for posting Radical Ryan.   I'll say it's somewhat over my head at the moment but I find it very interesting.  I knew someone who I was in personal contact with who had developed an anti-gravity device using gyro's in different axes as well as orbiting about each other IIRC.   Last I heard he was taking the idea to a university and I haven't heard any more since (years ago). 
I do recall reading about Von Brauns overshot and some of the other info but didn't recall why.  I think your ideas are worth expanding here.   I'm not sure I completely understand your idea on getting energy out of spinning disc,  stopping it with a generator and then dropping it etc.  That is I'm having a hard time visualizing such a setup.  Do you believe you would be getting overunity out of such a setup? 

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2013, 05:21:57 AM »
You guys should research modern satellites that need to be able to change their orientation while in orbit to take pictures or do Earth scans, etc.  They have spinning gyros in them for orientation.  After a certain amount of time the gyros are spinning too fast and the satellite does a "spin down" where it burns some rocket fuel.  This is to counteract the spinning down of the gyros which would normally cause a spin-up of the satellite so that after the spin-down it is in a non-moving orientation without the gyros turning.  Then as the satellite does its work and changes orientation, the gyros inevitably start to spin up again.   While the satellite is doing all of these gyroscopic gymnastics, the orbital path around the Earth is not affected.

I really don't think that you will uncover anything new with respect to gyroscopic forces and angular momentum but good luck.

Offline schuler

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2013, 03:02:38 PM »
 :D Rayan :D
Thank you for posting. It's refreshing debating with people based on experimentation and not faith. Agreeing or disagreeing, thank you for sharing links.

I have a simple question unrelated to gravity but related to speed:

Kinetic energy is proportional to V2 . Suppose that we have a rocket in space with massless fuel and there is no gravity involved (nor orbits). It spends half of the fuel to achieve velocity V by producing energy E. The next half of the fuel is also spent producing again another energy E. The final speed is 2V. But kinetic energy is now proportional to 4V2. The amount of the energy spent by the rocket is linear along the time but the kinetic energy grows faster. Why?

Thank you.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2013, 03:02:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2013, 11:38:19 PM »
Schuler:

Quote
I have a simple question unrelated to gravity but related to speed:

Kinetic energy is proportional to V2 . Suppose that we have a rocket in space with massless fuel and there is no gravity involved (nor orbits). It spends half of the fuel to achieve velocity V by producing energy E. The next half of the fuel is also spent producing again another energy E. The final speed is 2V. But kinetic energy is now proportional to 4V2. The amount of the energy spent by the rocket is linear along the time but the kinetic energy grows faster. Why?

You state that like it is a fact, but are you sure that it's true?

MileHigh

Offline schuler

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2013, 01:08:24 PM »
Hi MileHigh,
Your question is very good indeed. I'm not sure. The reason I'm not sure is that equations are tools to model reality. But equations aren't reality. And some equations around are so much taken from granted (believed with faith) that they aren't truly tested (in my opinion). This kind of thinking might hide discoveries right in front of our nooses. This is in part why I appreciate Ryan's thinking: he is exercising rationality instead of believing in the surrounding faith.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy


It's well know that kinetic energy is proportional to v2. It's also known that:


Quote
Rocket engines produce the same force regardless of their velocity.[/size]


Above statement has been taken from: [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect[/size]


 :)  Have Fun  :)

Offline schuler

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2013, 01:26:24 PM »
Hi Ryan,
I would like to take the freedom about explaining your point of view to others in the case it wasn't clear to everyone.


Quote
Spin a disc, lift it up, brake its spin into a generator until it nearly stops, let it drop, and get energy out of it's fall.


Lifting a spinning disk (according to Ryan  consumes less energy than retrieving in the fall. Assuming this is true and he has a super efficient way of spinning and then despinning (converting kinetic energy back to useful energy), than, he has OU.


Ryan's proposal can be easily (if you have the proper engineering resources) tested. If you can lift the spinning disk with less energy than the gravitational potential energy at the top, then you have OU.


Ryan, I'm not sure if I agree with the final part of your post. But this is not the central point anyway.


 :)   Thank you for all the fun. Keep doing.  :)





Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2533
Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2013, 05:46:12 PM »
   If you take a spinning top and place it on a truck heading east to west and you have very good bearings can you get the truck to move relative to the Earth's rotation?  It has been observed that train tracks heading north to south have increased wear on the west rail.  While tracks heading East to West the wear is evenly distributed. A train heading West would be better off spinning gyros and trying to stay put and let the station move away at some velocity up to 1000mph.  According to my understanding of Einstein's take on energy photons or the quantified basic unit of energy is actually quantified inertia.  This transfer of inertia from body of mass to body of mass is what we call energy.  So when we see a car move what we actually see is the car rid itself of the photons stored in it's rest state.  The fuel starts off in complete sycnhronization with the Earth as far as inertial parameters.  In order to move the vehicle relative to the Earth you must change the inertial state of the vehicle relative to the Earth.  You must radiate photon's associated with the rest state until you alter the inertia of the vehicle enough to see it move relative to the Earth.  In a rocket or a car or a train we burden the vehicle with a fuel.  This fuel takes on the inertial parameters of the Earth.  We then alter the fuels inertial parameters by radiating photons and the vehicle's inertial parameters become unlike the Earth's and relative motion insues.  It is unfortunate that as we radiate these photons we are unable to collect them for recycle.
 To further confuse gravity could well operate under the same inertia transfer.  A large body could continually radiate black photons.   These photons are basically information regarding a bodies mass/velocity/and vector.  These photons are adsorbed by a second body which then adjusts it's mass/velocity/and vector to more closely match the radiator body.  The larger more organized the body of mass the more black photons it radiates thereby effecting the mass/velocity/and vector of surrounding stuff.  The Earth's core radiates black photons which reach us at the surface.  We absorb these photons when we are at rest and appear to be accelerated towards the scource.  In reality (at least mine) we absorb these black photons and in so doing start to mimic the radiators mass/velocity/and vector.  So gravitational pull does not exist it is more like gravitational radiance, adsorption, and reaction.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2013, 05:46:12 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: