Anti-Gravity Wheel

[Allcanadian]

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

[gyula]

Here is the follow-up:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLMpdBjA2SU 

Gyula

[Jerry Volland]

If something acts on itself, then it's not Actionless, is it?
Is or not?

[Smudge]

If you study the world of electro-magnetics you will find inertial-like forces, i.e. acceleration of an electrically charged particle (like an electron) can produce an external force on the particle that opposes the acceleration.  Thus the particle inherits an inertial mass additional to its mass inertia.  Early scientists called this electrostatic mass.  Note that the force is an external one.

If you imagine a universe of positive charged particles, anywhere in that universe you will have an electrostatic potential.  If you accelerate a test charge you will get a force on it related to that potential and the acceleration. The accelerating particle "sees" an electric field.  This form of externally imposed inertia is readily accepted.

In a universe of positive mass, anywhere in that universe you will have a gravitational potential.  If you accelerate a mass particle you will get a force related to that potential and the acceleration.   The accelerating particle "sees" a gravitational field.  For some strange reason this form of externally imposed inertia is not accepted.  Why is that when it is so blindingly obvious?  All the strangeness of gyroscopes disappears when you accept that inertia is an external force.

I saw the Laithwaite lecture on TV that the Royal Society have expunged from their records because they did not like what they heard and saw.  I have corresponded with him.  Below is a paper I wrote many years ago where I try to demonstrate the external nature of the inertial forces responsible for the gyroscope's behaviour.

Smudge   

[Smudge]

Further to my previous post here is the next paper showing how the aether can create external forces.

Smudge

[Grumpy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeO91URF7dM

Posted on April 1st (April fools Day), but looks realistic...

[Grumpy]

found this paper also:

[Allcanadian]

Smudge
Thanks for the excellent papers and they were very thought provoking...

The æther contains zero-mass particles (S-particles) which are continually absorbed and
emitted by matter, giving rise to the inertial property of mass, which is now seen to be an
external force caused by acceleration through the æther

I came to similar conclusions and as Einstein later claimed, no theory is workable without an Aether/medium to account for action at a distance. Many may not get this but if you read some of Einstein's work he basically substituted the measures of space and time for a motional medium ie. the field and inertia. All work relates to a force acting on something through a distance which is motion, thus all energy is motion on some level. However since we do not know what a field is or the mechanisms of it's action relating to motion we can just vary the measures of space and time to compensate for our lack of understanding. Basically fudge the math so we can move forward until we find a better theory that works, lol.

In fact GR works quite well and we cannot tell the difference between a supposed clock within a variable time frame or a clock in which the properties of mass have changed giving the false appearance that time has changed. Did time change or did the clock run slower/faster because it's properties changed?. Obviously adding more clocks does not solve the inherent problem and we would need a clock having material properties unaffected by any velocity/acceleration which remains to be seen. I just thought it was kind of funny that so many people bought into Einstein's little joke because I thought it was absurd right from the start.

I think the reason nobody wants to admit there is an Aether is because what were really talking about is an interaction between mass and forces present in the surrounding space. You know, strange craft levitating, heavy things floating about, velocities faster than the speed of light. Let's face the facts and the moment we can interact with any given space which was once thought to be empty the jig is up. At this point space fails to be benign and becomes a medium or fluid like air that we can interact with. In layman's terms we could grab onto space just like an airplane propeller or wing grabs onto air. We could grab onto space and literally climb through the medium as easily as we climb a ladder.

Regards
AC