Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff  (Read 29316 times)

#### schuler

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 50
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2013, 04:16:29 PM »

#### e2matrix

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1947
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2013, 05:18:56 PM »
I've seen that one before - cool demo for anyone who has not played with gyroscopes.    I just found some info recently that may come into play regarding all this.   It is evidence that Newtons F=MA is WRONG.   Considering so many other laws and theories are based on that it is quite interesting to note.   Some one said Newton originally had a correct equation but that it got changed by someone (or even possibly by Newton due to some politics at the time).   The F=MA or Force = Mass times Acceleration does not in the real world show inertial weight is present in an inertial acceleration. So why isn't the inertial weight represented in the equation? The concept of Mass seems to be taking the place of inertial weight.   For an interesting paper titled "F = ma, Important Equation, Big Mistake" on this situation read the attached PDF.

#### schuler

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 50
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2013, 05:46:29 PM »
Thank you e2matrix.

Another interesting video:

#### schuler

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 50
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2013, 02:45:53 PM »
Found in another post:
Quote
Scientists from the Jagellonian University and Opole University have
observed that multiple rotation of a simple turbine showed that the
more times you turned it, the longer it rotated on its own later,
although, theoretically, it should not. They published the results of
their research in "Journal of Technical Physics".
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2006-04/msg00164.html

#### sparks

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2528
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2013, 06:33:33 PM »
Found in another post:http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2006-04/msg00164.html
Are they saying that the gyro is brought to rest and then spun up again using the same amount of input.  Then a brake is applied and that the gyro appears to generate more energy than used to spin it up?  This excess energy accumulates from previous spinups and braking cycles? For some reason the words inertial frame dragging come to mind.

#### e2matrix

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1947
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2013, 08:05:02 PM »
Found in another post:http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2006-04/msg00164.html
My first guess would be their bearings are breaking in and getting smoother although you would expect scientists would have looked at that (or not ).

#### FatBird

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1178
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2013, 02:23:07 AM »

Can you please give us an EXAMPLE of how we can use your information
to make an OVERUNITY device.

.

#### schuler

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 50
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2013, 01:10:55 PM »
Hi FatBird,
The idea is Half Baked.

The fist step is cheating gravity with a gyroscope. Please see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8 .

The second step is elevating the object to a higher altitude so you get gravitational potential energy. At this point, you convert back to energy (from gyroscopic energy) and stop the spinning.

The third step is converting (somehow) the gravitational potential energy into energy.

Hope it helps.

#### sparks

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2528
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2013, 02:42:21 PM »
This should be pretty easy to prove.  Just put a gyro suspended by a string to a scale.  Weigh the gyro not antimated then spin it up and weigh it again.

• Newbie
• Posts: 4
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2013, 12:55:54 PM »
I was reminded of this post from an e-mail reply.  5 months later I have to say yikes!  That sure was unnecessarily wordy (my post).

Although experimentation is necessary to advance science and to test hypothesis, I would like to add this:  Who carries the burden of experimental proof when there is logical consistency that is being disputed?  For example, if a guy starts going around saying 1+1 equals both 2 and 3, and he happens to be believed by lots of people, who should ask who for proof?  Should we have to proof to him that he is logically inconsistent by showing him over and over again that 1+1 equals 2 and NOT 3?  Or should we ask him to show US how it is that he thinks 1+1 has two different answers?

When it comes to finding a logical inconsistency in the previous conclusions of science, I feel that the burden of experimentation follows different rules than it does in the case of testing a hypothesis.   The hypothesis THAT two conclusions conflict cannot be resolved at the same level of reasoning that lead to the conflict.  Sometimes two things that are actually in conflict can seem true independently, but when examined together provide evidence that something is wrong with the method with which we found the supposed truth.  It can be shown in plain language that two other plain language statements conflict, without first proving that one is true and one is false.  If I say I both DID AND DIDN'T do something, for example, you know that I am in conflict with myself.  You don't have to find out through expermentation WHETHER I did or did not before you can show I could not have possibly both done and not-done it.  No experiment is necessary to discover an expressed logical inconsistency, except a simple mental check for logic (if you could call that an experiment).

The conflict that I'm referring to is that 1) velocity determines orbital ellipse, 2) gyroscopic behavior derives from the motion of individual particles, 3) all objects fall at the same rate regardless of the instantaneous motions of the particles of which they are composed.  These can't possibly all be true at the same time in the same universe.

Whether you heat, spin, or otherwise give kinetic energy to the individual particles within an object, you MUST change that object's orbital trajectory.  That's just plain logical derivation, straight from Kepler's laws of orbit.  The burden of experimenation, then, I think, lies on the scientific establisment, to show WHY an object's orbital behavior is a function of its sum-of-particles velocity, and NOT a function of the behavior of its individual particles.  (while somehow reconciling this with the fact that gyroscopes depend on the behavior of individual particles even while the gyroscope as a sum is "not in motion" and how the universe somehow allows individual particle motion to give rise to gyroscopic behavior, but inhibits that SAME velocity from effecting orbit.  i.e., prove to us that there are two kinds of velocity, one that is used to determine orbit and one that is used to govern the gyroscope.)

I'm just an amateur with no funds, no degree in physics, and no materials.  I CAN'T do experiments.  But when it comes to finding (what I believe are) logical inconsistencies in the scientific establishment, I'M NOT REQUIRED to show them anything.  They are required to show how I'm wrong, that it's not important, that it just doesn't matter, or that it's a closed-loop where you have to gain entry before anything you say that's in conflict with them could possibly be right.  Otherwise, I think I'm scientifically valid in continuing to believe that physics is currently an internally inconsistent science that does NOT PROHIBIT free energy, because of this inconsistency.  They have some things to clear up, not me.

Thanks for reading.  Unfortunately I have not been able to get youtube.  China blocked it.  If I get a VPN I'll definitely watch.  I'm reading the Newton-FailsF-ma.pdf

#### schuler

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 50
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2013, 04:59:36 PM »
Hi Ryan,
Quote
1) velocity determines orbital ellipse, ... 3) all objects fall at the same rate regardless of the instantaneous motions of the particles of which they are composed.

It seems to me that we live in a world where rationality isn't prevalent. But this is a subject for another thread. Anyway, I agree with sparks, testing is required.

Sparks, here we go with experiments:

Quote
'The mathematics said there were no forces and that was correct', Laithwaite recalled. 'The thing that wouldn't go away was: can I lift a 50 pound weight with one hand or can't I? Of all the critics that I showed lifting the big wheel, none of them ever tried to explain it to me. So I decided I had to follow Faraday's example and do the experiments.'   After retiring from Imperial College, laithwaite began a long series of detailed experiments. Sussex University offered him a laboratory and he formed a partnership with fellow engineer and inventor, Bill Dawson, who also funded the research. Laithwaite and Dawson spent three years from 1991 to 1994, investigating in detail the strange phenomena that had unnerved the Royal Institution.   'The first thing I wanted to find out was how I could lift a 50 pound wheel in one hand. So we set out to try to reproduce this as a hands-off experiment. Then we tackled the problem of lack of centrifugal force and the experiments were telling us that there was less centrifugal force than there should be. Meanwhile I started to do the theory. We devised more and more sophisticated experiments until, not long ago, we cracked it.'   The real breakthrough came, said Laithwaite, when they realised that a precessing gyroscope could move mass through space.

Above quote was taken from: http://rense.com/general42/genius.htm

Have Fun

#### schuler

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 50
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2013, 05:29:34 PM »

#### e2matrix

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1947
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2013, 09:33:08 PM »
Based on the last two posts I was reminded that there was a person here a couple years ago who had an gyroscope based anti-gravity device.   Most people were very skeptical and I think chased him off.   I got in personal contact with him and between who he is and his info he shared I have no doubt he really had a working anti-graity device.   As one of his descriptions to me stated - his high school aged kids walked into to his garage one day as he just had it working and said his kids who were used to his tinkerings had their jaws drop wide open as they watched his device hovering in mid-air.    I know he was using gyro's on 3 different axes and was looking to get some higher RPM more powerful motors.   He also told me he was contacting a University about this (which I recommended against).    He did give me the basics of his setup which was similar but not exactly the same as Tesla's anti-grav device.   I always thought if I got the time I'd give it a try.   For any one interested I'll try digging up  the info on this.   This person had enough credentials I checked out and money that I have no reason to believe he was faking any of this.  He was not asking for anything at all.   Unfortunately the usual negative skepticism that often occurs here probably drove him away.

#### schuler

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 50
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2013, 03:21:56 PM »
I would like to resume some of the interesting parts from these thread:

Quote
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.

Quote
incompatible statements: 1) velocity determines orbital ellipse, ... 3) all objects fall at the same rate regardless of the instantaneous motions of the particles of which they are composed.

Quote
The mathematics said there were no forces and that was correct', Laithwaite recalled. 'The thing that wouldn't go away was: can I lift a 50 pound weight with one hand or can't I? Of all the critics that I showed lifting the big wheel, none of them ever tried to explain it to me. So I decided I had to follow Faraday's example and do the experiments.'

#### fritznien

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 294
##### Re: OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff
« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2013, 05:19:09 AM »
no rocket has masslees fuel, no projectile can be pushed without a reaction.
momentum is conserved.
if you calculate the energy of your rocket at each speed V 2V etc and include
the energy of the reaction mass i think you will find something interesting.
note while the rocket gives it`s reaction mass a set speed relative to the rocket
its speed compared to the rest point changes with the rocket velocity.
i suggest you simplify the math by having you rocket eject mass in chunks at say
one second intervals.
fritznien