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: Anti-Gravity Wheel  (Read 2934 times)

#### onepower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1109
##### Anti-Gravity Wheel
« on: September 15, 2021, 06:18:55 PM »
I like the proof in this video because 1) it's demonstrable as seen in the video and 2) it's so obvious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo
Vertitasium, Anti-Gravity Wheel?.

Here we can apply any physics or equations we want but that does not change the fact that a large spinning mass on the end of a long shaft produces a completely non-intuitive phenomena.

Most don't understand what there seeing but the "spinning mass" has transferred all of it's "weight" to the fulcrum or point of rotation on the other end of the lever as shown below. However in order for the gyroscope/mass to transfer all it's weight to the fulcrum it must first apply an angular force on the lever following the known laws of levers. Which begs the question, the spinning mass obviously generated a force which produced the angular force on the lever but what was the spinning mass acting on to generate said force?.

As it turns out there is nothing the spinning mass can act on other than itself to produce the angular force on the lever ... Oh dear.

That's strange isn't it?, science is explicit that nothing can "act on itself" ergo act on nothing yet that is exactly what the spinning mass on the end of the lever did. So while most were mesmerized by the spinning mass they forgot to consider the lever it was attached to. I mean we all understand levers and the laws relating to them but somehow everyone got distracted in this case.

In my opinion this is a classic case of not being able to see what's right in front of us not unlike the concept of free energy. I mean all we have to do is ask a few simple questions...
1) Is this a lever with a mass on the end furthest from the fulcrum... yes
2) Does the lever require a force to lift or hold the lever on the end furthest from the fulcrum... yes.
3) Where does the force come from but more important what does the mass act on to produce said force?... apparently the spinning mass acts on itself.

When I first saw this experiment I thought it was very strange that so many people seemed to have completely missed the whole point. There is a large spinning mass on the end of a lever and somehow it produced a force "within itself" because there is nothing else it can act on... that is the point.

We could also think of it this way... imagine a black box on the end of a stick, now we place the end of the stick furthest from the black box on a stand and the whole thing seems to levitate or float in mid air slowly rotating around the stand. In this case everyone would lose there mind and conclude the black box is acting on nothing, how else could it support the weight of the black box?. So it seems obvious to me all the scientific explanations don't hold water because they haven't actually explained anything. The only relevant question is how did the black box support it's own weight with nothing to act on other than itself?.

Regards
AC

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5179
##### Re: Anti-Gravity Wheel
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2021, 08:02:24 PM »
Under attention ,like in all its mechanical spectrum : arrows direction !
positive = ccw or negative = cw M ( omentum) = F(orce ,with arrow above or below )x L(ever)

#### onepower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1109
##### Re: Anti-Gravity Wheel
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2021, 01:16:19 AM »
Another diagram...

#### onepower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1109
##### Re: Anti-Gravity Wheel
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2021, 12:43:06 AM »
Jerry
Quote
All of this will be easy for you to understand if you check some search results for gyroscopic precession.  Gravity is acting on the spinning mass, it's not acting on itself.

I would disagree, gyroscopic precession is defined as "a moment of inertia which varies in time". Since inertia is a "property of mass" the mass must have acted on itself to oppose the force of gravity. Which begs the question... is a property of something not integral to said something?. Obviously it must be otherwise we wouldn't have bothered to define it as a property in the first place.

This relates to the circular reasoning many in the physics community like to use. Follow the circular line of reason...

-A spinning mass opposed gravity>>>a spinning mass is a gyroscopic effect>>>gyroscopic precession>>>is a time varied inertial effect>>>inertia is a property of mass>>>a spinning mass acted on itself to oppose gravity.

You see they always end up right back where they started which is a clear indication it's circular reasoning and a logical fallacy.

Many like to use circular reasoning or logical fallacies because they don't really understand what there talking about. For example, all the forces we see and measure are due to the Primary Fields, (Electric, Magnetic, Gravic) and Inertia, but most do not know what these fields are. So they use circular reasoning to avoid having to answer the real questions they do not have an answers to.

In conclusion, it is the property of inertia of the spinning mass which is the cause of the force which interacts with the force of gravity and opposes it.

It's much easier for me than most because I took the time to understand what the primary fields and inertia are in reality. Not what they appear to do or try to use circular reasoning to avoid the hard questions but consider what they are in reality. As Einstein implied, his flawed theory of general relativity is unworkable because it always devolves to something acting on nothing. No offense but when the guy who created the theory claims it's unworkable people should listen to him.

I like the most up to date and logical theories which don't rely on imaginary things or logical fallacies... the electric universe theory is a good one.

Regards
AC

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3942
##### Re: Anti-Gravity Wheel
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2021, 01:43:03 AM »
Precession is only half of the picture. (R.I.P. Eric Laithewaite)
This alone does not account for the offset of the gravitational force.

Let us reduce the mass and increase the velocity, while holding the
precession at a constant.

We see that Energy approaches c^2

When considering the mass of the earth, and it’s local spatial rotational velocity
(approx. 1000mph at the surface from a 5th dimensional perspective)
any conceivable mass rotating at sufficient rpm will feel no gravitational force in perpendicular vectors.

As a factor of mass x velocity, it will require more energy to move it from its’ plane.
Once this value is greater than the gravitational constant, gravity has little to no effect on the rotating mass.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3942
##### Re: Anti-Gravity Wheel
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2021, 01:45:59 AM »
To put that in Einsteinian language:

The energy we placed into the mass by spinning it,
increased the mass-equivalent to a value greater than the mass-equivalent
portion of the Earth’s gravity affecting the space around the spinning object.

#### onepower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1109
##### Re: Anti-Gravity Wheel
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2021, 08:06:07 AM »
Smoky2
General relativity was doomed the moment Einstein claimed it was unworkable. He invented GR, he should know.

The electric universe theory is superior because it doesn't rely on imaginary forces or variable measures. Space and time are obviously not variable they are used to measure something variable.

You may not understand this but an even better theory is emerging. As Einstein said, GR is dead and is irreconcilable without an Aether. He was correct and the new aether will probably be the dark energy/matter theory.

The fact remains that any theory which cannot reconcile action at a distance is a dead horse. Which is why GR is dead and soon to be replaced with a proper field theory which explains what a field and inertia actually are in reality.

It's kind of funny because if your ever in a room full of physicists  and want to shut them up all you have to do is ask them what a field is. They get this look of panic because apparently they have no idea what it is or where to even start. That in itself explains a great deal...

I mean if someone doesn't understand what a field is then what do they really know?. It's just the thing which translates all force and dictates the motion of everything in the known universe, lol.

So what do you think inertia is?. Not what it does, anyone can google that, what is it?.

Regards
AC

#### onepower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1109
##### Re: Anti-Gravity Wheel
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2021, 09:09:44 AM »
Here's a clue...

Googling "inertia" shows 72,800,000 results and not one link will explain what it is.

Googling "magnetic Field" shows 493,000,000 results and not one link will explain what it is.

Googling "electric field" shows 1,710,000,000 results and not one link will explain what it is.

Googling "gravitational field" shows 50,300,000 results and not one link will explain what it is.

That's kind of strange isn't it?, in this absurd age of "all is known" apparently quite a bit is unknown. By quite a bit I mean, only the Primary Fields and Inertia which dictate all force and motion in the entire universe as we know it. Not a big deal, it's just that nobody seems to have a clue how all the really important stuff actually works.

It would seem to me there is no solid foundation of science to build on because the moment we try everyone sinks into a quagmire of imaginary things and untenable beliefs bearing little resemblance to reality. Think about that, in the whole of the internet supposedly holding the combined knowledge of all mankind nobody can seem to answer a few simple questions, lol... it's fascinating stuff, almost unbelievable.

Here's another clue...

I have met a few people who have a pretty good idea what the Primary Fields are in reality as I do. However there's a catch, any credible theory must rely on nothing being created or destroyed, only transformed ie. the conservation of energy and mass.

It's also very strange that almost nobody believes in free energy ie. energy transformed from any given space but have no problem with everything being created from nothing. Logically if everything could magically be created from nothing then we don't even need free energy. Why bother when we could just create something from nothing as well?. I'm not sure I understand this strange concept, so it is impossible to create something from nothing but apparently everything was created from nothing?...

In my mind it begs the question, so which is it?, either something can be created from nothing or not but you can't have it both ways...

Regards
AC