Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes

rscientist, do not try to bullshit your way through this thread, it won't work with me.

And the graph you are presenting shows that the two balls did not leave the device used to throw them at the same speed. Any half competent scientist sees this graph and immediately finds a lot of questions you have not answered.

It is an error DUE TO THE GRAPHICS USED, not the experiment itself!



Here are the results of the experiment where better graphics were used:




It is devious for you to resort to this kind to trickery to try to fool the readers.


You have not addressed the essential feature of the DePalma experiment:


The spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


This experiment alone is enough to show that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.


http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.



First, commercial gravimeters have a precision of some 10 microgals, which means a precision of about 0.01 parts per million. And this is a portable unit (Micro G LaCoste A-10), not even a state of the art non-portable unit! Even if you want to give yourself a good margin of error, you are measuring the acceleration of a ball falling through vacuum with an error of 0.1 parts per million. In this experiment the error is more than 3000 parts per million!



The nominal gravity is given as 980cm/s^2 = 980Gal.  Gravity measurements are often given in units of micro-gals:  1 μGal = 10^-6Gal.  One micro-Gal (µGal) precision requires a measurement of the earth’s field with a precision of 1 part in 10^9(1 part/billion).

http://www.microglacoste.com/pdf/A-10Manual.pdf


The requirements for accuracy in absolute gravity measurements are much the same for the geodesist and the metrologist. An accuracy of one part in a million is critically needed and an accuracy of one or two parts in ten million would be most desirable.

http://digicoll.manoa.hawaii.edu/techreports/PDF/NBS107.pdf

Therefore your statement is false and misleading; no real science, just bullshit on your part.


FURTHERMORE, the Micro-g LaCoste A-10 is a field stated industry standard, and has proved itself in environments as extreme as the high Arctic and the deserts of the Middle East.

http://scintrexltd.com/dat/content/MgL_A10.pdf

The A10 operates by using a free-fall method. An object is dropped inside a vacuum chamber and its position is monitored very accurately using a laser interferometer.  In 2004, the BIPM (Bureau International de Poids et Mesures) proclaimed the ballistic freefall method as an official primary method for measuring gravity.


The publicity material of the manufacturer shows examples where precision better than 1 μGal is reached (Micro-g LaCoste, Inc., 2010). The results of gravity measurements with the A10 gravimeter performed during last decade by different research teams show a steadily
improved performance (Liard and Gagnon; 2002; Duquenne et al, 2005; Schmerge and Francis, 2006; Kryński and Roguski, 2009; Bonvalot et al., 2009, Falk et al., 2009, Nielsen et al. 2010). Under laboratory conditions, the quality of the measurements is clearly better than that specifi ed by the manufacturer. Also the results of recent field measurements are very promising.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/1995-2003/99144e.shtml

J. M. Brown, T. M. Niebauer, B. Richter, F. J. Klopping, J. G. Valentine, and W. K. Buxton, “Miniaturized gravimeter may greatly improve measurements”: On the micro-g lacoste A-10 merits.


The gyro drop proves that the rotating gyroscope falls faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


Now, look at the results in the table that shows all the 20 ball drops. All the results on the "rotating" column except for two are slower than the fastest result on the "non-rotating" column! Even a quick glance at this table should tell you that there is nothing compelling in these results, but the author tries to show them as the demise for known Physics!

http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html



Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


What did you say? Known Physics? Nowhere in the Principia does Newton mention attractive gravity; on the contrary, he dismisses this known law in no uncertain terms:

A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”


Newton calls your whimsical belief in the law of attractive gravity an absurdity, he tells that YOU have no competent faculty of thinking to believe in such a thing.

Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'



sokarul...these are the upper forums; you need to go back to a junior forum.

"Non spinning ball followed predicted path established by gravity"?  He never made the claim "attractive gravity" is now invalid due to his experiment.

But he does.

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical...

Do you understand English? The spinning ball went higher than the identical non-rotating  ball, and fell faster too, a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity.

According to N.A.Kozyrev, the rotation is actually the force of time

I SPECIFIED from the very first messages on gravity/ether, years ago, that Dr. N. Kozyrev discovered that our terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of telluric currents, more exactly, the DEXTROROTATORY WAVES/CURRENTS. For Kozyrev time = terrestrial gravity, this is his extrarordinary discovery. More details about the Kozyrev time theory in my message at the relativity thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1399626.html#new

According to N.A.Kozyrev, the rotation is actually the force of time

I SPECIFIED from the very first messages on gravity/ether, years ago, that Dr. N. Kozyrev discovered that our terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of telluric currents, more exactly, the DEXTROROTATORY WAVES/CURRENTS. For Kozyrev time = terrestrial gravity, this is his extrarordinary discovery. More details about the Kozyrev time theory in my message at the relativity thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1399626.html#new

Wow...

So let me make sure I understand you right.
A guy postuletes that spinning energy alters the flow of time and creates an imbalance between the past and future as a way to explain why stars burn so long.
You then tell me be found something else that you can't even explain, provide math for, or detect in any meaningful way. Especially since we have objects spinning at millions of rpm yet never do they float. And through all this, you can't possibly be wrong.

Am I right?

Two follow up questions:
1. The rotating gyroscope would cause vibrations in the box it's in. Even minor vibrations could have caused the clasp mechanism to hold onto the metal box for a few instances longer. How was that accounted for or eliminated?

2. If it weighs less, why did he drop it and not just weigh it? Surely the scale would show it weighed less when running then not?

The experiments carried out by both DePalma and Kozyrev and very simple and straightforward.

Dr. Kozyrev (see The Pendulum of the Universe article in the Sputnik magazine) made sure that his experiments were screened from any factors usually taken into account in such experiments: air currents, mechanical actions/causes, electrical fields, e/m fields.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.



According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

http://www.rexresearch.com/torsion/torsion2.htm




KOZYREV, TIME, AETHER, TORSION:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30



The gyro drop was performed in the USA; I do not know yet of Kozyrev's gyro drop experiments, he used extensively the rotating gyroscope to prove the inexistence of attractive gravity.


KOZYREV ON TIME:

http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Kozyrev/paper1a.txt



You have failed again to address the main points:

The spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart in Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment.

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics.



The weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation in Dr. N. Kozyrev's experiments; these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail and they have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.[

The gravitational acceleration on the Earth's surface is of order 980 Gal, measuring gravity to 1 microgal requires a resolution of approximately 1 part per billion; building a mechanical-optical-electronic instrument to operate reliably under field conditions with the required precision is clearly a technological challenge.

http://principles.ou.edu/grav_ex/absolute.html



The current instrumental accuracy estimate for the FG5 gravity meter is 1.1 microGal, or about one part per billion of the gravitational acceleration (g) at the Earth's surface.

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRD/GRAVITY/ABSG.html


http://www.bkg.bund.de/nn_149572/EN/FederalOffice/Geodesy/RefSys/NatRefGrav/Grav02__node.html__nnn=true (comparison of FG-5 and the LaCoste A-10 gravimeters)


http://books.google.ro/books?id=XwYWcXVIXGkC&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=micro+g+gravimeter+fg5+lacoste+A-10&source=bl&ots=qC_SC5BLWT&sig=bVlKc0tATxOntdahOrod5etvLrE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RbF2UILXLK6P4gTk0ICQCQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=micro%20g%20gravimeter%20fg5%20lacoste%20A-10&f=false

If it was done thousands of times, why is there only one data table of 20 trials (13 and 7)? They aren't even the same number of trials for each condition.

The nominal gravity is given as 980cm/s^2 = 980Gal.  Gravity measurements are often given in units of micro-gals:  1 μGal = 10^-6Gal.  One micro-Gal (µGal) precision requires a measurement of the earth’s field with a precision of 1 part in 10^9(1 part/billion).

http://www.microglacoste.com/pdf/A-10Manual.pdf

... and a lot of more of the same ...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/1995-2003/99144e.shtml

J. M. Brown, T. M. Niebauer, B. Richter, F. J. Klopping, J. G. Valentine, and W. K. Buxton, “Miniaturized gravimeter may greatly improve measurements”: On the micro-g lacoste A-10 merits.

Such a long description on how the acceptable errors in this field are, at worst, of one part per million. I agree with you. And you show us an experiment with actual, measured experimental error of about 3000 parts per million! That is one part in 300! The experiment is orders of magnitude too filled with error to be compared with the worst acceptable measurements in the field, and you still argue?

This is as if I asked you what the world record in 100 meters is, and you answer "somewhere around 5 to 15 seconds, because I measured it by singing and counting my words".

Anyone with even a passing interest in experimental Physics should look at the results of this experiment and laugh. They were not even capable of letting a ball drop and get a reasonably precise measurement of the time it took to fall.

Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.

This gem requires a post just for itself. For anyone interested in serious Science, pay attention:

    The above is called cherry picking, and will get you dismissed from any serious Science program at any serious university!

You do not get to choose the results you like and discard the rest. Ever. If you additionally hide the results you do not like and get caught, any career in Science is over.

I told you that tricks do not work with me.

The nominal gravity is given as 980cm/s^2 = 980Gal.  Gravity measurements are often given in units of micro-gals:  1 μGal = 10^-6Gal.  One micro-Gal (µGal) precision requires a measurement of the earth’s field with a precision of 1 part in 10^9(1 part/billion).

The requirements for accuracy in absolute gravity measurements are much the same for the geodesist and the metrologist. An accuracy of one part in a million is critically needed and an accuracy of one or two parts in ten million would be most desirable.


The gravitational acceleration on the Earth's surface is of order 980 Gal, measuring gravity to 1 microgal requires a resolution of approximately 1 part per billion; building a mechanical-optical-electronic instrument to operate reliably under field conditions with the required precision is clearly a technological challenge.


CAN YOU MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE MILLION AND ONE BILLION?


Let me repeat: the FG-5 gravimeter has a precision of one micro-Gal (µGal) - which means a resolution of approximately 1 part per BILLION.

The worst case scenario for the LaCoste A-10 gravimeter is 10 µGal.

But, as we have seen, contrary to your mischevious statements, the publicity material of the manufacturer shows examples where precision better than 1 μGal is reached (Micro-g LaCoste, Inc., 2010). The results of gravity measurements with the A10 gravimeter performed during last decade by different research teams show a steadily
improved performance (Liard and Gagnon; 2002; Duquenne et al, 2005; Schmerge and Francis, 2006; Kryński and Roguski, 2009; Bonvalot et al., 2009, Falk et al., 2009, Nielsen et al. 2010). Under laboratory conditions, the quality of the measurements is clearly better than that specifi ed by the manufacturer. Also the results of recent field measurements are very promising.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/1995-2003/99144e.shtml

J. M. Brown, T. M. Niebauer, B. Richter, F. J. Klopping, J. G. Valentine, and W. K. Buxton, “Miniaturized gravimeter may greatly improve measurements”: On the micro-g lacoste A-10 merits.


Even with the worst case scenario, of 10 µGal, WE ARE WELL WITHIN the accepted margin of 1 part per MILLION precision.


The experiment for the gyro drop was performed perfectly, using the LaCoste A-10 gravimeter (a field stated industry standard, which has proved itself in environments as extreme as the high Arctic and the deserts of the Middle East), using extremely precise clock measurements.


The runs from 3 to 7, the ones performed WITH THE ROTATING GYROSCOPE (remember that 13 runs were done with the non-rotating gyroscope, and SEVEN runs with the rotating gyroscope), here is a summary:



For the runs from 3 to 7 we have precise documentation, which does show that the rotating gyroscope does fall FASTER than the non-rotating gyroscope:




These figures WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE had there been any attractive gravity in existence; they CONFIRM totally and absolutely what I. Newton declared in the previously mentioned statements: terrestrial gravity is caused by the pressure exerted by the telluric currents.



Dr. N. Kozyrev was the greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century, by far. In comparison to him, Einstein, Minkowsky, Rutherford, Born and the rest are just pikers.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.



According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

http://www.rexresearch.com/torsion/torsion2.htm

Why are there 13 non-spinning trials and only 7 spinning trials? Why weren't they done with the same number of trials?

Also: why drop them if you can weigh them? Wouldn't that produce more accurate results?

It seems those 7 trials runs were enough to show that the rotating gyroscope does fall faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


I already explained that Kozyrev performed the rotating gyroscope experiments, while the research team of Dr. DePalma concentrated on the gyro drop experiment (in addition, of course to the superb Spinning Ball Experiment already discussed here).



Now, a complete confirmation that the LaCoste A-10 gravimeter does provide accuracy to within 1 PART PER BILLION.

http://scintrexltd.com/dat/content/file/Gravity%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.pdf (Jennifer Hare from Micro-g LaCoste Inc.)

Other specialized instruments such as the INO sea-floor gravity meter, Gravilog
borehole gravity meter, and the rugged A-10 portable absolute gravity meter can acquire part per billion (microGal) resolution data in environments that were considered inaccessible as recently as ten years ago. 


Exactly what I have been saying in my last two messages proving that real(?!)scientist was playing with the numbers in order to falsify the data: the accuracy is ONE PART PER BILLION, and NOT one part per million.  Therefore we are well within the required/accepted margin of error.

I told you that tricks do not work with me.

You are embarrassing yourself. You are showing that you do not know what experimental error is, but want to rant about experimental error none-the-less.

In this post I will talk only about the non-rotating balls that were thrown, because it is the easiest part.

In this experiment they throw a box of some kind and get differences of up to 0.0036 seconds in a 0.66 second drop. This means that, at the very least, we know that there is an experimental error of at least 0.0036/0.66 = 0.0055, or 0.55%!  And this is just what you see when you look at the differences between their own results. This does not include any error which may have affected all results equally. And 0.55% error is one part in 182, which I generously improved to one part in 300 in my last post by not using the worst results (which is not valid in real scientific papers).

Now we are getting a wall of blabber about how in the exact same experiment (throwing a ball and timing its fall to calculate the local gravitational pull) others get errors in the range from 1 part in a million to 1 part in a billion. The fact that others do the same measurement several orders of magnitude better should be enough to get de Palma and his people running and hiding in total embarrassment. It should also send levee into accepting that these results are worth nothing, but he just writes another wall of blabber.

Whoever wants to repeat de Palma's experiment is welcome to do so. But he must know that the quality of the results has to be orders of magnitude better than what you see here. Whatever the acceleration of a ball is in your location, that acceleration is constant to within small fractions of one part in a million. If your experiment shows some balls fall 0.55% faster than others, and those are just plain balls without rotating pieces inside, you are doing an astonishingly bad experiment.

It seems those 7 trials runs were enough to show that the rotating gyroscope does fall faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


I already explained that Kozyrev performed the rotating gyroscope experiments, while the research team of Dr. DePalma concentrated on the gyro drop experiment (in addition, of course to the superb Spinning Ball Experiment already discussed here).



Now, a complete confirmation that the LaCoste A-10 gravimeter does provide accuracy to within 1 PART PER BILLION.

http://scintrexltd.com/dat/content/file/Gravity%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.pdf (Jennifer Hare from Micro-g LaCoste Inc.)

Other specialized instruments such as the INO sea-floor gravity meter, Gravilog
borehole gravity meter, and the rugged A-10 portable absolute gravity meter can acquire part per billion (microGal) resolution data in environments that were considered inaccessible as recently as ten years ago. 


Exactly what I have been saying in my last two messages proving that real(?!)scientist was playing with the numbers in order to falsify the data: the accuracy is ONE PART PER BILLION, and NOT one part per million.  Therefore we are well within the required/accepted margin of error.

This is absolutely hilarious. Let me separate it in small phrases so even levee understands his own logic:

• Premise: there is a machine (the LaCoste A-10 gravimeter) that does exactly the same experiment that dePalma does (the non-rotating part), with a precision of about one part per billion
• Premise: the gravitational pull on one given location is constant to less than one part per million for relatively short periods of time. This is basic to the analysis of fields where oil and other resources are explored.
• Premise: dePalma's machine measures exactly the same (the acceleration of a falling ball) but gets to a totally different result: that the gravitational pull changes up to 0.55% between his 13 measurements.
• Conclusion: dePalma's machine has the precision of the LaCoste machine, even though its results are totally different from LaCoste's machine

Where did levee learn logic? Where did he learn that the specifications and performance of one machine can be assigned to another?

In reality, every explorer who uses gravimetry knows that measurements of "g" that jump up to 0.55% are impossible on Earth unless they are taken in the middle of an earthquake, so an experimental setup that gets that kind of result is severely damaged or has insanely poor design.

Quote from: levee on October 12, 2012, 02:23:37 AM

I told you that tricks do not work with me.

You are embarrassing yourself. You are showing that you do not know what experimental error is, but want to rant about experimental error none-the-less.

I do not mean to ride on your coat tails but its been a damn busy week and this sums up my own thoughts rather concisely.

It seems those 7 trials runs were enough to show that the rotating gyroscope does fall faster than its non-rotating counterpart.

That's not how science works.  And with the values being as wild as they are, the extra 6 trails could have thrown the average off.
For example.  If you remove the last 6 trials in the non-rotating ball, you get an average of 0.6617 instead of 0.66203.  That's a 0.00033 second difference.  That changes things a lot doesn't it?

Also: I've taken the liberty of making you a new graph since yours makes no sense.  (the height changes when you drop it?)

It's kinda weird looking actually.  The first two trials proves you wrong then it goes down hill from there with the gap seemingly becoming wider yet nothing changing between trials.  How odd....

I found a video with this experiment and it's far more convincing than this.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bruce DePalma gyroscope experiment test


An interesting note:
A japanese team did the gyroscope drop and found the OPPOSITE effect.
http://www.josephnewman.com/Falling_Gyroscope_Experiment.html

The time taken to fall this distance was 1/25000 sec. longer than when the gyroscope was not spinning

According to the DePalma experiment, it took less time to drop it, creating an INCREASE in gravitational force. 

I already explained that Kozyrev performed the rotating gyroscope experiments, while the research team of Dr. DePalma concentrated on the gyro drop experiment (in addition, of course to the superb Spinning Ball Experiment already discussed here).

Isn't that the same experiment?  The rotating gyroscope drop?

rc, you have shown yourself to be a fraud: you had no idea that the A-10 gravimeter has an accuracy of one part per billion, well within the accepted margin of error of one part per million.

Your "analysis" amounts to nothing, again, your calculations are wrong, you cannot divide the difference by the total amount, and then compare this to the one part per million/billion accuracy, you obviously HAVE NO IDEA what is going on, and are continuing the usual bullshit routine.


lorddave, Kozyrev performed the rotating gyroscope experiment.

Runs 3-7 could not have happened had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, that is how science works, no matter what you say.

Your link IS A JOKE, as the author cannot explain the fact that the Japanese researchers found the same anomaly, his pseudoexplanation amounts to nothing.

rc, you have shown yourself to be a fraud: you had no idea that the A-10 gravimeter has an accuracy of one part per billion, well within the accepted margin of error of one part per million.

And how on Earth does the accuracy of the A-10 gravimeter help de Palma's people, who did not use one and instead made a dreadfully poor machine for the experiment? Your argument still is that de Palma's experiment is accurate because the A-10 is accurate. That is the same as saying that I am the world 100 meter dash champion because Usain Bolt is the accepted champion and I declare myself better.

You have shown for the umpteenth time that you do not know the first thing about calculating experimental error, or even the first thing about understanding a scientific article.

Runs 3-7 could not have happened had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, that is how science works, no matter what you say.

Then explain why 28% of the data is contradictory.

Your link IS A JOKE, as the author cannot explain the fact that the Japanese researchers found the same anomaly, his pseudoexplanation amounts to nothing.

Actually it was the opposite. They found that it took LONGER to fall, not less time. Kozyrev showed that in 5 trials out of 7 that the spinning gyroscope took LESS time to fall.

Which one is right because they can't both be.

The A-10 gravimeter is the industry standard with an accuracy well within the accepted limit of one part per million. By the way, realscientist, why are you trying so hard to become trig's alt?


LORDDAVE, you do not pay attention to our discussion.

Nikolai Kozyrev performed the ROTATING gyroscope experiment, NOT the gyro drop experiment.


The gyro drop experiment was done by the team of Dr. Bruce DePalma.

You should be able to explain now, given what you have learned so far, why runs 3-7 defy attractive gravity: telluric currents (ether) increase their density around the gravimeter, the longer the experiment goes on.


Why do you not pay attention to your own links, lorddave?

In the London Sunday Telegraph of 21 Sept. 1997, Robert Matthews reports that "a team of Japanese scientists have spun up a gyroscope to 18000 rpm and dropped it through a distance of 63 inches in vacuo. The time taken to fall this distance was 1/25000 sec. longer than when the gyroscope was not spinning, corresponding to a weight reduction of 1 part in 7000. The effect only occurred when the gyroscope was spinning anticlockwise.

Anticlockwise = dextrorotatory spin = an INCREASE in the dextrorotatory type of telluric currents, therefore, an increase in the pressure gravity exerted on the object; it confirms the findings of Dr. Kozyrev.


A LAEVOROTATORY spin means an increase of the antigravitational telluric currents with the same spin, therefore, a loss of weight.



Now, more proofs that there is no such thing as attractive gravity, read the following material very carefully.




http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher of France.

Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.



BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

The intensity or magnitude of the effect is determined by five known factors, namely:

1) The separation of the plates of the condenser - the closer the plates, the greater the effect.

2) The ability of the material between the plates to store electrical energy in the form of elastic stress. A measure of this ability is called the 'K' factor of the material. The higher the 'K', the greater the Biefeld-Brown effect.

3) The area of the condenser plates - the greater area giving the greater effect.

4) The voltage difference between the plates - the greater the voltage, the greater the effect.

5) The mass of the material between the plates - the greater the mass, the greater the effect.

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect

Dr. Brown experimented with umbrella and disk shaped gravitators. The umbrella devices consisted of two electrodes, one positive and one negative, with one electrode shaped like a large bowl and the other like a smaller bowl. Overall, this formed an open-air capacitor but with asymmetric electrodes, whose asymmetric electric fields generated unbalanced gravitational divergences and increased acceleration. The disk gravitators, described earlier, did the same except one electrode formed the leading edge of the disk, while the other electrode formed the body and trailing edge.

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

The Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrates a link between electricity and gravity.


Dr. Townsend Brown patents:

http://www.rexresearch.com/gravitor/gravitor.htm


High voltage Biefeld-Brown experiments (very well documented):

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm




http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown

http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html


VIDEOS with the antigravitational Biefeld-Brown effect:


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"># (antigravitational effect begins at about 1:33)


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#

If an increase in spin means a loss in acceleration ( weight is irrelevant to drop speed) then why did depalma (I use rotating gyroscope to describe the rotating gyroscope drop) find that his rotating gyroscope took less time to fall than the Japanese?  According to you, a rotating gyroscope increases the currents which increases the acceleration down (gravity) which should cause it to fall faster with each trial.

The Japanese did not see this.



Also: nice videos of the Biefeld-Brown effect. They look fake but ill go with them.
But why do you think it's anti-gravity? Do you think magnets are anti-gravity? Superconductors?
Do you believe that a wire with an AC current going through it defies gravity when put between a horse-shoe magnet?

Those videos are not fakes: they exhibit the BIEFELD-BROWN effect - the link between electricity and terrestrial gravity.

A dextrorotatory gyroscope increases the weight (it attracts MORE dextrorotatory telluric currents); a laevorotatory gyroscope will lose a part of its weight because of the antigravitational effect of the same type of telluric currents.

The laevorotatory telluric currents can be attracted by using sound, electrical charge and laevorotatory rotation/spin.



If an increase in spin means a loss in acceleration

In the gyro drop experiment an increased acceleration was noticed in its rotating mode.



why did depalma (I use rotating gyroscope to describe the rotating gyroscope drop) find that his rotating gyroscope took less time to fall than the Japanese?

Dr. Bruce DePalma performed the SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT: A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.



I already explained why the rotating gyroscope drop (the experiment done by the team of Dr. Bruce DePalma) took less time to fall then in the experiment performed in Japan.

Anticlockwise = dextrorotatory spin = an INCREASE in the dextrorotatory type of telluric currents, therefore, an increase in the pressure gravity exerted on the object; it confirms the findings of Dr. Kozyrev.


A LAEVOROTATORY spin means an increase of the antigravitational telluric currents with the same spin, therefore, a loss of weight.





They did actually see exactly what you described: According to you, a rotating gyroscope increases the currents which increases the acceleration down (gravity) which should cause it to fall faster with each trial. (runs 3-7) - remember though that the influence of telluric currents depends also on other factors (see the message with Keely and the other experiments).



But why do you think it's anti-gravity? Do you think magnets are anti-gravity? Superconductors?
Do you believe that a wire with an AC current going through it defies gravity when put between a horse-shoe magnet?

A magnetic field is made up of the same type of waves/strings/currents as in the telluric currents.

Here are the correct diagrams for a magnetic field:

http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/hojo-leed.jpg
http://peswiki.com/images/a/ab/Ed_Leedskalnin-magnets_circulation.gif


Notice TWO currents: laevorotatory and dextrorotatory double torsion strings at both N-S poles of the magnet.


The Biefeld-Brown is antigravitational because the flow/vibration of the laevorotatory subquark strings in the atoms of the disk/object used are increased to a certain degree. This causes in turn MORE telluric currents (especially laevorotatory) to be attracted to the disk/object forming a kind of tornado around the object itself - this is actually the antigravitational effect seen in the videos.



The Vril secret society (1936-1945) used the double torsion effect to maximum effect to power an UFO, and also observed certain superconducting features in their experiments.


“The Nazi Bell device consisted two of counter-rotating cylindrical containers. The containers, which were positioned one above the other measured approximately 1-meter diameter, and were filled with cryogenically cooled and frozen Mercury metal. There was a frozen core of a metallic paste, which served as a “high permeability material” for the EMG (electromagnetic-gravitational) field.”

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_antigravity01.htm


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/hunt_zeropoint.pdf

In their terminology, XERUM = Mercury in fourth state of ether (for the classification of the ether states please see: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401109.html#new

Superconductivity means that the flow of the bosons/antibosons which make up the subquark vortices (and thus, in turn, the telluric currents) is greatly eased, as opposed to usual temperatures in conducting materials.



A horse-shoe magnet with a wire or capacitor is called the Linden Experiment please see:

http://rimstar.org/sdenergy/testa/lindenexp.htm



http://www.testatika-berichte.richard-taube.de/

Now I understand. You're renaming magnetism and electric fields with aether currents. Ok that makes sense.

Still doesn't make it anti-gravity though. At least no more anti-gravity than a plane.

ANTIGRAVITY = any increase in the laevorotatory strings/waves being attracted by sound/electrical charge/torsion, which in turn will activate the laevorotatory subquarks (tachyons) of the atoms of the object being experimented upon.

This is how the Tibetans levitate those huge blocks of stones, not to mention the monolith at Baalbek, by increasing the vibration of the laevorotatory subquarks of the stones.






Recently an even larger monolith was discovered at Baalbek:









Three blocks, weight 1000 tons each


Seven blocks, each weighing 400 tons


Fourteen blocks, each weighing 300 tons


Hills slope away from where lifting apparatus would need to have been placed and no evidence has been found of a flat and structurally firm surface having been constructed (and then mysteriously removed after the lifting was done). Furthermore, not just one obelisk was erected but rather a series of giant stones were precisely put in place side-by-side. Due to the positioning of these stones, there is simply no conceivable place where a huge pulley apparatus could have been stationed. Archaeologists, unable to resolve the mysteries of the transportation and lifting of the great blocks, rarely have the intellectual honesty to admit their ignorance of the matter and therefore focus their attention solely on redundant measurements and discussions regarding the verifiable Roman-era temples at the site.

The route to the site of Baalbek, however, is up hill, over rough and winding terrain, and there is no evidence whatsoever of a flat hauling surface having been created in ancient times.


http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/Mysteries_of_the_World/Baalbek/Baalbek6/baalbek6.html

http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/Mysteries_of_the_World/Baalbek/Baalbek7/baalbek7.html

Laevorotatory - The rotating (counter-clockwise) plane of polarized light.
Strings - The theory that sub-atomic particles like squarks are not 0 dimensional objects but 1 dimensional oscillating lines.  Strings are not waves.
Charges are not torsions.  Or did you mean torsions as in twisting.  In which case they're REALLY not the same. 
subquarks (Preons) aren't very well defined to begin with so I'm curious how a 0 dimensional item can be a laevorotatory. (ie. rotate a plane of light) considering lightwaves(and all EM waves) are much larger than these things.
Tachyons are theoretical particles, not Preons.

You've just had a massive quantum mechanical fail.

The A-10 gravimeter is the industry standard with an accuracy well within the accepted limit of one part per million. By the way, realscientist, why are you trying so hard to become trig's alt?

For the fifth time or so I am agreeing with you that the A-10 gravimeter is well within one part per million in error. And for about the fifth time I am saying the same myself. Nobody is disagreeing with you in this fact, which also nobody cares to challenge.

The question continues to be: why did De Palma and his people not use an A-10 or similar gravimeter but instead made one by themselves which has an astounding 1 part in 300 minimum demonstrated error? It is as if I offered you a state of the art chronometer to time a race and you decided to use a sand clock instead.

And then you want to make some other kind of twisted appeal to authority? Because I seem to you like some other guy/gal you assign your trouble understanding basic experimental error to whatever you do not like about someone who is not even in this discussion?

If you want to rant about experimental error, rant against lorddave. He has shown your elemental mistakes in understanding experimental error as much as I have.

And the other readers of this thread, take this opportunity to learn a little bit about experimental error. Never mind whether the Earth is round, square or cubic. You will get a very simple lesson on one of the most important subjects in Science.

The A-10 gravimeter has an accuracy of approximately one part per BILLION, thus well within the margin of error of one part per million.

Your calculations are wrong, I repeat: you cannot divide the difference by the total (units of time) and compare this to the one part per million figure, please try to understand this.


lorddave, please read up on strings/waves/torsion physics (I included links to the detection of subquarks/preons, all you have to do is read):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401109.html#new

Your calculations are wrong, I repeat: you cannot divide the difference by the total (units of time) and compare this to the one part per million figure, please try to understand this.

Of course you can, and should take the difference and divide it by the total in this case. We know that the gravitational pull does not change more than a few parts per million on any given location on Earth. In fact, the differences of 0.55% shown in these measurements are not even possible if some of the measurements were taken in Mexico City and some in Oslo. You can check here to see that Mexico City and Oslo are among the ones with lowest and highest gravitational pull, respectively.

This is Experimental Physics 101: If you measure something that is constant in your experiment and some of the measurements you make are changing by 0.55%, your experimental error is at least 0.55%, and maybe a lot more!

If the gravitational pull really changed by 0.55% in your home, you should be able to weigh a 5 kg bag of salt with any digital kitchen scale and see differences of 27 grams between measurements! An ordinary digital kitchen scale would be enough to see differences in gravitational pull in my very own home!

lorddave, please read up on strings/waves/torsion physics (I included links to the detection of subquarks/preons, all you have to do is read):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401109.html#new

I have a working knowledge of physics levee. And you are not any kind of expert on the subject (obvious by your gross misuse of terms). Why would I read anything you wrote in that post and think its accurate?  It would be like me explaining Swahili to you.

The A-10 gravimeter has an accuracy of approximately one part per BILLION, thus well within the margin of error of one part per million.

That's nice Levee, now can you show us where they actually used an A-10 gravimeter in the experiments?