Video 1
Video 2
In #AntiGravity Part 6, I present the many findings and discoveries made during this past year and a half regarding gyroscopes and all things rotation in general. The discoveries made are on the face of them so simple yet shatter the most overly complicated notions of conventional mainstream physics and science in general. The simple act of rotation defies the very bedrock underneath all of conventional (public) physics. The concept of ‘inertia’ and how it is defined underlies both conventional Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian Relativity. But the simple act of rotation allows objects to have the magical ability to ‘inertially’ lift upwards, forwards, and even downwards, all without losing additional spin speed and while generating incredible torque over unity yet also behaving ‘massless’. Objects in rotation prove ‘spin angular momentum’, ‘precessional angular momentum’, ‘mass’, ‘inertia’, and hence ‘gravity’ as separate entities are merely illusions; puppets in a puppet show where the puppet master always lay underneath: the Aether.
Understanding the true nature of such simple motions as ‘rotation’, which is nothing more than curved linear motion, requires exploring and firmly grasping the true nature of reality itself. From inertia and magnetism to even psychology, technology, and consciousness itself. This video and document, which I am self-appointing as my ‘Doctorate in Philosophy’ or PhD sets the precedent for true scientific exploration and the start of an investigation into the true nature of reality, which has been covered up both by those that rule this world and those that choose to be ruled. Hope you enjoy this epic journey!
Due to YouTube video length restrictions, Part 6 is split into two videos. The sections in the first video are shown below with their accompanying times in the video.
Intro: 0:00
(1) Important Links and Notes: 1:34
(2) Introduction: 5:45
(3) Table of Contents: 8:37
(4) #MESExperiments Science Experiments Video Series: 55:56
(5) General Notes on Scientific Exploration: 58:08
(6) Clearing Eric Laithwaite’s Name: 1:06:01
(7) Eric Laithwaite’s Unconventional Interpretation of Newtonian Mechanics: 2:25:11
(8) Cambridge University’s Bogus Fake Science and Coverup of Gyro Magic: 3:06:30
(9) TOP SECRET: The Movie Inception and Spinning Tops: 4:04:00
(10) Overview of Conventional Physics Regarding Spinning Tops, Gyroscopes, and Objects in Rotation: 4:07:06
(11) Overview of Newton’s Laws and Einstein’s Relativity: 4:52:03
(12) Owen Liang’s Gyro Space Top Proves Spin Angular Momentum is an Illusion: 5:28:39
(13) INCEPTION IS REAL: Are We Living in a Dream?: 7:06:33
(14) Exploring Owen Liang’s Many Unnecessary Accounts: 7:07:36
(15) Owen Liang’s Battle with Wikipedia: 9:00:10
(16) Francis McCabe and Gyro 1000X+ Torque Over Unity!: 9:19:47
The following sections are shown in the second video.
(17) Inertial Propulsion and Inertial Lift are Facts of Life: 0:00
(18) Tippy Tops and Phi Tops Demonstrate Rising with Spin Axis Change: 52:58
(19) The Amazing and Underappreciated Gyrocompass: 1:54:32
(20) The Concept of Inertia and Coherency: 2:50:48
(21) Overview of Mainstream Clueless Science Regarding Gyroscopes and Objects in Rotation: 3:03:39
(22) SUMMARY OF MY SELF-APPOINTED PHD: 3:45:51
(23) MES DUALITY BREAKTHROUGH CONCEPT: 5:10:57
(24) AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH: 5:53:35
(25) Exploring the True Nature of Gravity, Mass, Magnetism, Electricity, Light, and Reality: 7:37:52
(26) David LaPoint’s Primer Fields, the Ferrocell, and Ken Wheeler’s Magnetism: 7:48:05
(27) THE TO KEY GYROSCOPIC MAGIC IS ‘COUNTERSPACE’: 10:29:19
(28) True Magnetism and the Interconnectedness of All Things: 11:05:58
Stay tuned for #AntiGravity Part 7!
Watch Video On:
- 3Speak:
- Odysee: https://odysee.com/@mes:8/-AntiGravity-Part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics:b
- BitChute:
- Rumble: https://rumble.com/v20u0i0-antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-.html
- DTube:
- YouTube:
- Video 1:
- Video 2:
- Video 1:
Download my PhD:
- PDF: https://1drv.ms/b/s!As32ynv0LoaIh-xTV42m_NX2ZDQYIw
- Word: https://1drv.ms/w/s!As32ynv0LoaIh75UFj1Vekcq1656wA
Full #AntiGravity Video Series: @mes/series
View PhD Below
☝#ANTIGRAVITY PART 6: OBJECTS IN ROTATION DEFY 'MAINSTREAM' PHYSICS
My Self-Appointed PhD & The Cheat Code to Life: MES Duality
Important Links, Notes, and Recap of Previous Video Parts
Reuse of My Videos and Documents
- Feel free to make use of, re-upload, monetize my videos and/or documents as long as you provide a link to the original video and/or document.
Tips and Faster Playback Speed
As per usual in all my recent videos, take note of the following tips when viewing this or any other video, especially if you don’t have time to watch the whole video.
- Skip to the end for Summary and Conclusions
- Play this video at a faster speed.
- TOP SECRET LIFE HACK: Your brain gets used to faster speed. #Try2XSpeed
- Try 4X+ Speed by Browser Extensions or Modifying Source Code.
- Browser Extension Recommendation: https://mes.fm/videospeed-extension
- See my tutorial to learn more: @mes/play-videos-at-faster-or-slower-speeds-on-any-website
- Download and Read Notes.
- Read notes on Hive #GetOnHive
- Watch the video in parts.
Recap on Previous Parts
The early parts of this video series are listed below, as well as my deep dive into the world of real info.
- MUST WATCH: 10,000+ Subscribers Recap: My Dive into the Rabbit Hole and #FreeEnergy: https://mes.fm/milestones-playlist
- Part 1: Introduction to Gyroscopes, Eric Laithwaite, and "Anti-Gravity" + Random Saturn Symbolism + My Rant Trashing Mainstream Science
- Part 2: Eric Laithwaite Lifts a 40 lb Gyro-Wheel Like a Feather!
- Part 3: Eric Laithwaite's Reality-Defying "Controversial" Gyro Lecture
- Part 4: Spinning Wheels Precess with ZERO Angular Momentum, ZERO Centripetal Force, and near Instantaneous Reactionless acceleration.
- Part 5: Spinning Wheels Balance UPSIDE DOWN!
Video Notes Download and Viewing Links
Download Link for this Document: (updated after completion of this video.)
- PDF: https://1drv.ms/b/s!As32ynv0LoaIh-xTV42m_NX2ZDQYIw
- Word Document: https://1drv.ms/w/s!As32ynv0LoaIh75UFj1Vekcq1656wA
- Hive Notes: @mes/antigravity-part-6-video-1-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept
Full Video Series: @mes/series
YouTube Playlist: https://mes.fm/antigravity-playlist
View or Download All Notes: https://mes.fm/antigravity
Relevant Video Series
Here are links to my other relevant video series.
- #911Truth: @mes/911
- #FreeEnergy: https://mes.fm/freeenergy-playlist
- #MESExperiments: @mes/list
- DRAFT #MESExperiments: https://mes.fm/experiments-draft
These video series are all intertwined. #911Truth is the motivation to research #FreeEnergy which inevitably leads to #AntiGravity, and all of which require to rethink everything we think we know about science, life, and reality in general. And #MESExperiments is my effort in doing just that! Make sure to watch them all! The DRAFT #MESExperiments are the nearly 800 experiments (as of today) which I film in bulk whenever I am analyzing any physical phenomena; i.e. the MES certified real scientific method.
Introduction
The making of this video broke me. The write up of this document straightened me out. The discoveries made required a journey of self-reflection which led to the inevitable revealing of the face of the LORD.
The people I used to look up to now seem like a distant image in my rear view. Heroes such as Judy Wood and Eric Laithwaite have demonstrated their purpose in life, even if they had not yet fully realized it. What they did was do and say what must be said because it must be said. It must be said not because it is “important” since no thing is important on its own. It must be said because others are not saying it. It must be said because life itself has no meaning if it is not said. It must be said because no one else will say it. It must be said because, well just because, it is wanted to be said.
Is there anything more meaningful than saying what is wanted to be said?
I have appointed this research document and video as my “Doctor of Philosophy” or PhD in the “Physics of Reality”, because I want to.
Alright enough speaking in parables. This PhD documents many of my findings, as well as those of other free-thinking researchers and inventors, that are on the face of them so simple but the implications so grand. The greatest implication is how the entire world has been blind to the “mainstream” physics-defying properties of simple spinning tops and gyroscopes. Yes, simple rotating objects.
So simple, yet in every textbook and university in the world you will not find that they magically rise all on their own.
Simple experiments demonstrate “mass” transferring, disappearing, reappearing, and generating focused over-unity force. Simple experiments that require conventional terms of “conservation of energy”, “angular momentum”, and “momentum” to come with an asterisk (*): *pseudo-science.
Simple easy to replicate experiments demonstrate that something else is being interacted with. We have been consciously unaware of its presence, but subconsciously we have breathed it on Earth since the dawn of this theatre we call ‘reality’. Even in death we can’t escape its presence.
The Aether.
This video sets a precedent for true scientific exploration, one which lets reality do the talking instead of imposing unproven (and disproven) theory upon unproven (and disproven) theory. I will be referencing this document in all of my later works, so make sure to fully comprehend what is presented.
Hope you enjoy!
Mathiew Estepho
CEO and Founder of Math Easy Solutions (MES)
Table of Contents
- IMPORTANT LINKS, NOTES, AND RECAP OF PREVIOUS VIDEO PARTS
- INTRODUCTION
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- #MESEXPERIMENTS: MES SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS VIDEO SERIES
- DRAFT #MESEXPERIMENTS UNLISTED VIDEO SERIES
- IMPORTANT NOTES ON PHYSICS AND SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION
- MES DISCLAIMER ON “MAINSTREAM” ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING
- AN “EXPLANATION” IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION, AND CERTAINLY NOT NECESSARILY A CAUSATION
- MES AXIOM: ALL “EXPLANATIONS” ARE JUST APPROXIMATIONS TO EXACT NATURAL PHENOMENA
- THE IMPORTANCE OF ENTERTAINING DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF PHYSICAL PHENOMENA
- THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
- CLEARING ERIC LAITHWAITE’S NAME FROM SLANDER AND IGNORANCE
- ERIC LAITHWAITE'S OBITUARY BY IMPERIAL COLLEGE IS "COINCIDENTALLY" MISSING SOMETHING…
- THE “ROYAL” FAMILY’S PRINCE CHARLES WAS A BIG FAN OF ERIC’S GYROS!
- Eric Laithwaite Lifting Heavy Gyros with his Pinky Finger!
- Harvey Fiala’s Inertial Propulsion Device
- VERITASIUM’S DISGRACEFUL AND BLATANT COVERUP OF ERIC LAITHWAITE’S IRREFUTABLE ANTI-GRAVITY WHEEL
- Veritasium Literally Suggests that Eric Laithwaite is a Con-man Using a “Trick” to Purposely Mislead People
- Gyroscopes Rise When the Precession is Hurried and Drops When it is Slowed
- How Can the Center of Mass Rise Without Changing the Weight?!
- MES POST FILMING REALIZATION: Veritasium Showed Clips of the Weight Changing
- Conventional Physics Requires Weight Scale Reading to Change as Center of Mass Increases
- MES BOMBSHELL REALIZATION: Simple Forced Precession Has Always Demonstrated Reactionless Inertial Propulsion!
- Veritasium Suggests that Eric Laithwaite is Lying About the Gyro Wheel Feeling as Light as a Feather
- The Gradual Evolution of My Awareness and Mindset
- Veritasium Making a Mockery of Physics, Science, and Humanity
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: GYROSCOPES CAN RISE UPWARDS ALL ON THEIR OWN!
- Mainstream Sources and Even Mainstream Alternative Sources Didn’t Think This Was Possible
- Eric Laithwaite’s Missing 1966 First Ever Televised Christmas Lecture
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: GYROSCOPES CAN ALSO RISE “DOWNWARDS”!
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: REMOVING ROTATIONAL OR PRECESSIONAL FRICTION IS KEY TO MAGICAL GYRO-RISING
- MAINSTREAM WIKIPEDIA OVERVIEW OF ERIC LAITHWAITE’S LIFE
- ERIC LAITHWAITE ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN GYROSCOPIC INERTIAL PROPULSION IN TERMS OF UNCONVENTIONAL NEWTONIAN MECHANICS
- “MASS TRANSFER” OR REACTIONLESS INERTIAL PROPULSION EXPERIMENT
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: GYROSCOPES CAN PRECESS UPWARDS ON ICE WITH ZERO CENTRIPETAL FORCE
- ERIC LAITHWAITE’S MASS TRANSFER PAPER AND UNIVERSAL EQUATION FOR GYROSCOPES
- ERIC LAITHWAITE DEMONSTRATES THAT FORCED PRECESSION CAN GENERATE LIFT!
- ERIC LAITHWAITE’S INITIAL ANTI-GRAVITY WHEEL WEIGHED 50 POUNDS!
- CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY’S BOGUS "REPETITION OF LAITHWAITE'S EXPERIMENTS, WITH EXPLANATIONS"
- RECAP OF ERIC LAITHWAITE’S DEMONSTRATION OF A GYROSCOPE PRECESSING WITH ZERO CENTRIPETAL FORCE
- 3000 Pound Gyro-Car Precessing About a 10 Pound Ladder?
- EMMA WILSON’S ATTEMPT TO DEBUNK THE UNDEBUNKABLE: GYROSCOPES PRECESS WITH ZERO CENTRIPETAL FORCE
- EMMA WILSON’S CARTOON FAKE PHYSICS
- EMMA WILSON DOESN’T ADDRESS THE MANY FACTORS THAT AFFECT PRECESSION
- MY ICE EXPERIMENTS VALIDATE ERIC LAITHWAITE AND DEBUNK EMMA WILSON
- SHOUT OUT TO “WOOPYJUMP” AND “JOGGLEVISION” YOUTUBE CHANNELS FOR ALSO SEEING THROUGH BOGUS CAMBRIDGE FAKE SCIENCE!
- FAMOUS PRECESSING BICYCLE WHEEL EXPERIMENT HAS ALWAYS DEMONSTRATED ZERO CENTRIPETAL/CENTRIFUGAL FORCE
- GYROSCOPES PRECESS WITH ZERO “ANGULAR MOMENTUM”
- THE DISCOVERY THAT PUT MY ENTIRE LIFE ON HOLD
- TOP SECRET: SPINNING TOPS PROVE WE LIVE IN A DREAM #INCEPTION
- WHY WAS A SPINNING TOP CHOSEN FOR THE INCEPTION MOVIE?
- WHY DOESN'T A SPINNING TOP FALL?
- LITERALLY EVERY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE ARTICLE EVER WRITTEN IGNORES, DOWNPLAYS, OR DOESN’T EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT SPINNING TOPS AND PRECESSING GYROSCOPES RISE UPWARDS
- “ROTATIONAL INERTIA", OR INERTIA IN GENERAL, IS THE LEAST UNDERSTOOD AND MOST MISUNDERSTOOD TOPIC IN PHYSICS
- BRUCE YEANY’S BRILLIANT ILLUSTRATIONS OF MAINSTREAM ANGULAR MOMENTUM AND SPINNING FORCES
- CENTRIPETAL REAL FORCE VS. CENTRIFUGAL FICTIONAL FORCE COMPARISON
- THE AMAZING SPILLNOT
- “ANGULAR MOMENTUM” IS THE ROTATIONAL EQUIVALENT OF LINEAR MOMENTUM
- NO MENTION ON WIKIPEDIA THAT GYROSCOPES MAGICALLY RISE UPWARDS!
- BRIEF OVERVIEW OF NEWTON’S LAWS OF MOTION AND EINSTEIN’S THEORIES OF RELATIVITY
- Newton’s 3 Laws of Motion
- Newton's 1st Law
- Newton's 2nd Law
- Newton's 3rd Law
- Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
- Coulomb’s Law of Electric Force
- Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
- Special Relativity
- Mainstream “Luminiferous” Aether vs MES True Aether
- General Relativity
- Equivalence Principle
- Equivalence Principle and Electromagnetism Paradox
- Mainstream Attempt to Unify Relativity with Quantum Mechanics
- MAINSTREAM WIKIPEDIA PHYSICS WAS LACKING SO I LOOKED FOR ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS
- THE MYSTERIOUS AND BRILLIANT OWEN LIANG
- Owen Liang Held the Top Secret Spinning Top Secret Since At Least 2008
- Fast forward to Owen’s More Recent Videos and Websites
- OWEN LIANG’S 4 CATEGORY OF SPINNING TOPS
- Category 1: Gravity Spinning Top
- Category 2: Inverting Spinning Top
- Category 3: Asymmetrical Spinning Top
- Category 4: Hybrid Spinning Tip
- MES Category 5: Hybrid Asymmetrical Spinning Top
- Gyro Space Top Can Jump Back and Forth from Different Categories
- OWEN LIANG’S “GLOBE TOP” ALLUDES TO THE SECRET BEHIND UFO TECHNOLOGY
- OWEN LIANG’S AMAZON GRYO SPACE TOP PRODUCT LISTING IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE!
- Great Insights from Owen’s Product Listing
- Owen Liang Owes Me Money!
- LIANG DISTANCES HIMSELF FROM "ANGULAR MOMENTUM" AND SO DO I
- Owen Liang Also Distances Himself from "Friction" and So Do I
- OWEN LAING’S INVERSE LAW OR THEORY OF OPPOSITION
- The Illusion of “Angular Momentum”
- The Subtle Difference Between Spinning Tops and Typical Gyroscopes
- The Profound Implications of Owen Liang’s Discovery: Gravity = Magnetism = Any Opposing Force?!
- Rotation = Automatic Balancing!
- OWEN LIANG EXPLAINS WHY THE GYRO SPACE TOP WAS INVENTED CENTURIES LATE
- INCEPTION IS REAL
- IS REALITY JUST A DREAM?
- FURTHER EXPLORERING THE GENIUS MIND OF OWEN LIANG
- SUMMARY OF OWEN LIANG’S MANY RANDOM WEBSITES AND ONLINE ACCOUNTS I COVERED EARLIER
- NEW OWEN LIANG ONLINE ACCOUNTS I RECENTLY DISCOVERED!
- Owen Liang's Kickstarter and the Man Behind the Legend
- Owen Liang Has Written Two Top Secret E-Books!
- Owen's New and Improved Website!
- OWEN LIANG’S PATENT FINALLY GOT APPROVED!
- Patent Application
- Patent Granted
- HIGHLIGHTS FROM HIS NEWLY DISCOVERED CHANNELS
- Spinning Top Based Self-Balancing One-Wheeled Robot
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Spinning Tops Can Rise and Lift Much Greater Than Their Own Weight and at an Increased Rising Rate!
- Bogus YouTube Comment Section “Critics” Not Thinking Clearly
- Precessing Gyroscopes Rise Even When Hung on a String
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Replicating the Rising Gyro on String Experiment with a Counterweight Makes it Drop!
- Bogus “Critic” Returns
- Owen Liang Still Won’t Respond to Me About Purchasing a Billion Gyro Space Tops!
- Automated Electric Gyro Space Top
- HIGHLIGHTS FROM OWEN’S KICKSTARTER CAMPAIGNS
- Highschool Teacher Baffled by the Anti-Gravity Space Top
- Kickstarter “Critics” Repeating Typical Unthinking Appeal-to-Authority Talking Points
- HIGHLIGHTS FROM HIS NEW GOOGLE SITE
- Owen Liang References My #MESExperiments Part 1 Video of Rising Gyros!
- Owen’s Updated Theory of Opposition and the Liang Force
- More Highlights from his New Site
- HIGHLIGHTS FROM HIS PATENT
- HIGHLIGHTS FROM HIS TOP SECRET BOOKS
- New Theoretical Top: Flying Tops
- New Theoretical Top: Astroid Turning Top
- Spiral Precession is True Precession, NOT Circular Precession
- “Angular Momentum” Can’t Explain the Gyro Space Top
- No Upwards Force Can Be Found to Explain How a Spinning Top Rises
- Theoretical “Liang Forces” or Horizontal Centrifugal Forces that Create Upwards Torque
- Owen Liang Mistakenly Assumes That Faster Spinning Speeds Equate to Faster Rising
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Faster Gyro Spin Speed Does Not Necessarily Mean Faster Rising
- Gravity as a “Soft Anchor” and Theoretical Liang Axis
- Multiple or Distributed Theoretical Liang Axis and Force
- MES Gyroscope Experiments Appear to Contradict Owen’s Theoretical “Liang Forces”
- Owen’s First Gyro Space Top Prototype
- Inspirational and Heart Felt Top Secret Poem
- OWEN LIANG’S BATTLE WITH WIKIPEDIA TO GET THE GYRO SPACE TOP PUBLISHED
- WIKIPEDIA “ORPHAN” ARTICLES WITH NO LINKS FROM OTHER PAGES
- OWEN LIANG’S COMMUNICATIONS WITH WIKIPEDIA FROM AUGUST 2015 TO JUNE 2016
- Owen’s Orphan Articles Considered “Spam” and a “Hoax”
- Wikipedia is Not a Place for Original or Non-Mainstream Research
- Owen Liang Didn’t Help His Case…. LOL
- Owen’s Further Communications with Oblivious Admins
- PLEASE HELP BY POSTING ON WIKIPEDIA OR EMAILING MAINSTREAM OUTLETS ON MY BEHALF
- FRANCIS MCCABE 1000X+ TORQUE OVER-UNITY LARGE GYRO WHEEL!
- PRECESSION GIVES THE ILLUSION OF “ANGULAR MOMENTUM”
- THE MAGICAL POTENTIAL OF GYRO OVER-UNITY POWER
- Manually Powered Gyro Precession Over-Unity Power Generator?!
- FRANCIS MCCABE’S 88X TORQUE OVER-UNITY OSCILLATING GYRO PISTON PROTOTYPE
- Over Unity Gyro Piston Powered Car?
- Over Unity Compact Gyro Piston Powered Bicycle?
- Over Unity Giant Gyro Piston Power Plant?
- ERIC LAITHWAITE DEMONSTRATED FORCED PRECESSION GYRO TORQUE OVER-UNITY IN 1974 LECTURE
- MES BOMSHELL DISCOVERY: DOWNWARDS TORQUE INDUCES FORCED PRECESSION WHICH INDUCES RISING TORQUE?!
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Gyroscopes Can Rise Upwards Faster When Weight is Added and Can Rise Even on a Needle
- FRANCIS MCCABE DEMONSTRATES PRECESSION REQUIRES NO ADDITIONAL POWER INPUT EVEN AT TORQUE OVER-UNITY
- Clueless “Critics” Need to Remove the Blindfold Covering Their Minds
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Gyroscopes Exert “Inertial Forces” With Zero Loss in Spin Speed
- WIKIPEDIA DELETES FRANCIS MCCABE’S WIKIPEDIA PAGE A FEW DAYS AGO…
- Fortunately, I Archived His Wikipedia Page
- INERTIAL PROPULSION AND INERTIAL LIFT ARE FACTS OF LIFE
- IMPORTANCE OF GYROSCOPES FORCED PRECESSION CAUSING RISING OR DROPPING
- MES EXPERIMENTS DEMONSTRATING INERTIAL PROPULSION AND INERTIAL LIFT
- PRECESSION DIRECTION AND GYRO SPIN DIRECTION TEND TO LINE UP OPPOSITE OF VERTICAL FORCE
- ERIC LAITHWAITE DEMONSTRATION GYRO INERTIAL LIFT THROUGH FORCED PRECESSION
- MES BOMBSHELL REALIZTION: VERY LITTLE FORCED PRECESSION IS REQUIRED TO GENERATE LIFT
- THE INERTIAL PROPULSION INVENTION BY ALEX JONES THAT THRUST ERIC LAITHWAITE INTO THE MAGICAL WORLD OF GYROSCOPES
- THE FAMOUS SANDY KIDD INVENTION THAT GENERATES LIFT THROUGH FORCED PRECESSION
- Important Note on Sandy Kidd’s Invention
- YOUTUBE EXPERIMENTER “WOOPYJUMP" DEMONSTRATES HORIZONTAL INERTIAL PROPULSION
- Disappearing Mass During Natural Precession and Reappearing During Forced Precession Causes “Action Without Reaction”?
- HARVEY FIALA’S INERTIAL PROPULSION DEVICE
- TIPPY TOP AND THE PHI TOP DEMONSTRATE GYRO MAGICAL RISING WHILE CHANGING SPIN AXIS
- MAINSTREAM (BOGUS) REVIEW OF PHI TOPS AND TIPPY TOPS
- PBS YouTube Channel “Physics Girl” Enters “Veritasium” and Cambridge University Level of Mockery of Physics
- MES REAL SCIENCE LOW FRICTION ICE EXPERIMENTS
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Frozen Phi Top and Tippy Top Rise on Ice!
- MES Semi-BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Phi Tops and Tippy Tops Have Difficulty Maintaining Risen Position After Rising
- Tippy Top in Slow Motion Shows Amazing Spin Axis Change, Reverse Spinning, and Upwards Launch
- MES Semi-BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Tippy Tops Require Adequate Friction to Maximize Spin Speed After Rising Upwards
- MES BOMBSHELL REALIZATION: Spinning Tops Tend to Rise Faster Than Similar Precessing Gyroscopes Because Rolling Generates Forced Forward Precession!
- MES BOMBSHELL POTENTIONAL DISCOVERY: Is a Non-Rolling Spinning Top Just a Gyroscope?
- TIPPY TOP AND PHI TOP EXPERIMENTS WITH A MAGNETIC STIRRER
- Frozen Tippy Top on Ice Drops its Stem at Low Spin Speeds on Magnetic Stirrer
- Amazing Phi Top Rising Demonstration on Magnetic Stirrer!
- “Physics Girl” Could’ve Saved Me Time by Just Using Wooden or Plastic Tops on Ice
- THE GREAT OWEN LIANG ALSO SEES PAST THE BOGUS “FRICTION” EXCUSE FOR TIPPY TOPS AND PHI TOPS
- THE GYROCOMPASS IS THE EMBODIMENT OF THE MAGICAL PROPERTIES OF GYROSCOPES
- GYROSCOPE SPIN AND PRECESSION DIRECTION TEND TO ALIGN AND OPPOSITE OF VERTICAL FORCE
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Gyroscopes with a Tilted Stem Will Rise Until Spin and Precession Directions are Aligned
- MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Gyroscopes with a Tilted Stem Hung by a String Can Rise from Negative Angles
- Tippy Tops and Phi Tops Demonstrate Stable Spin and Precession Alignment at Higher Centers of Mass
- THE AMAZING AND UNDERAPPRECIATED GYROCOMPASS
- MES Gimbaled Gyroscope Demonstrates the Mechanism of a Gyrocompass
- A Gyrocompass is Just a Gyroscope that is Forced to Precess with Earth’s Rotation
- Super Precise and Durable Gyrocompasses are Used in Many Ships at Sea
- FRANCIS MCCABE DEMONSTRATES FIRST EVER MECHANICAL DEMONSTRATION OF “INERTIA”
- Balls Inside a Spinning Sphere Align with the Spin Direction
- MES PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF “INERTIA” SHEDS LIGHT ON ITS MYSTERY
- QUICK OVERVIEW OF MAINSTREAM “EXPLANATIONS” REGARDING GYROSCOPES AND OBJECTS IN ROTATION
- BIG MAINSTREAM SCIENCE YOUTUBE CHANNELS CAN’T GET BASIC ROTATIONAL PHYSICS CORRECT
- 14+ Million Subscribers “Vsauce” Doesn’t Know Gyroscopes Can Rise Upwards
- 270+ Thousand Subscribers Steve Mould Doesn’t Know Gyroscopes Don’t Lose Spin Speed from Twisting
- 455+ Thousand Subscribers “standupmaths” is Baffled by the Tippy Top
- John Perry’s 1890 Book on Spinning Tops Understood Hurrying Precession is the Key to Rising of Spinning Tops
- 199+ Thousand Subscribers Walter Lewin Cautions Students About the Most Difficult Concept of All: Gyroscopes and Torque
- 5+ MILLION SUBSCRIBERS “VERITASIUM” CAN’T FIND A PHYSICIST THAT CAN EXPLAIN A SPINNING DISK
- MAINSTREAM SCIENCE WEBSITES BAFFLED BY OBJECTS IN ROTATION
- “American Scientist” Doesn’t Know how Gyroscopes Work or What Inertia Is
- The Most Difficult Concept in Physics: Spinning Tops
- HISTORICAL “SCIENTISTS” BAFFLED AT SIMPLE TOPS
- BICYCLES ARE STILL A MYSTERY TO MAINSTREAM SCIENCE
- SUMMARY OF MY SELF-APPOINTED PHD
- OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND TOPICS COVERED
- INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT LINKS
- IMPORTANT NOTES ON PHYSICS
- CLEARING ERIC LAITHWAITE’S NAME FROM SLANDER AND IGNORANCE
- REVIEW OF VERITASIUM’S DISGRACEFUL COVERUP OF ERIC LAITHWAITE’S ANTI-GRAVITY WHEEL
- MAINSTREAM WIKIPEDIA NARRATIVE AND SLANDER OF ERIC LAITHWAITE
- ERIC LAITHWAITE’S LATER “MASS TRANSFER” THEORY AND UNCONVENTIONAL INTERPRETATION OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS
- CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY INSULT TO SCIENCE AND BLATANT COVERUP OF ERIC’S REALITY DEFYING GYROSCOPE COMMON SENSE FINDINGS
- MAINSTREAM WIKIPEDIA PHYSICS OF SPINNING TOPS AND GYROSCOPES
- MAINSTREAM PHYSICS OF THE MYSTERY OF INERTIA
- DEFINITION OF “INERTIA” IS BASIS FOR NEWTONIAN AND EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS
- TOP SECRET: OWEN LIANG PROVES INCEPTION IS REAL
- Further Information Regarding the Bizarrely Genius Owen Liang
- Owen Liang’s Trouble Getting his Gyro Space Top Published on Wikipedia
- FRANCIS MCCABE LARGE’S GYRO WHEEL DEMONSTRATES 1000X+ TORQUE OVER-UNITY AND THE ILLUSION OF “ANGULAR MOMENTUM”
- INERTIAL PROPULSION AND INERTIAL LIFT ARE FACTS OF LIFE
- TIPPY TOPS AND PHI TOPS ALSO MAGICALLY RISE BUT WHILE CHANGING SPIN AXIS
- THE GYROCOMPASS EMBODIES MUCH OF THE MAGICAL PROPERTIES OF GYROSCOPES
- OVERVIEW OF MAINSTREAM GYROSCOPIC PHYSICS
- SUMMARY OF MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERIES AND REALIZATIONS
- MES DUALITY BREAKTHROUGH CONCEPT
- ELABORATION OF THIS REALIZATION
- THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS CONCEPT
- DISCOVERY OF #MESDUALITY
- MES Duality is the Realization that the Apparent Duality in All Things is an Illusion
- ALL IS ALL IN ALL AND THINKING OTHERWISE IS “SINFUL”
- THE RIPPLE IN THE AETHER OF DUALITY
- THE ALL SEEING AND ALL KNOWING I
- AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH
- THE REAL PHYSICS OF SPINNING OBJECTS REQUIRES RE-EXAMINING ALL OF SCIENCE
- MULTIPLE SPINNING WHEELS, REVERSE SPINNING WHEELS, AND BICYCLES
- Gyroscopic Stabilized Bike Wheel?!
- Monowheel Lets You Ride Inside a Bike Wheel!
- 1960s Gyro-X Prototype Car
- Bicycles Can’t Balance When Steering is Locked?!
- Bicycles Can Balance Even with a “Negative Caster Trail” or Counter Rotating Wheels to Cancel the “Gyroscopic Effect”
- Bicycles (and Humans) Balance on a Treadmill Without Needing Forward “Momentum”
- Eric Laithwaite’s “Most Remarkable” Gyroscope Experiment on a Pivot
- Mainstream Science Can’t Get Curling Physics Right
- MES INTERESTING DISCOVERY: Spinning Tops Can Precess in Reverse Direction and Likely Due to Rolling
- MES INTERESTING DISCOVERY: Tippy Tops Rolling in Opposite Direction of Precession but Can Precess in Normal Direction Once Flipped
- GYROSCOPIC EFFECTS WITHOUT CIRCULAR MOTION
- Vibrating Gyroscopes in Electronics and Nature
- Vibrating Inverted Pendulum Stabilizes Upside Down!
- John Hartman’s Square Gyro
- TADASHI TOKIEDA’S TOYS AND CHIRALITY
- Rattlebacks Rattle Backwards and Forwards
- First Ever Chiral Tippy Top?
- “Physicists” Deny it Existence LOL
- MES Possible Mechanism for Tippy Top Chirality
- Mechanical Demonstration of Phase Transition
- Euler’s Disk: Interaction Between Spinning, Rolling, Vibration, and Sound
- Mainstream “Open Problem” of Magnetic Colliding “Abacus”
- TIM ROWETT’S GRAND ILLUSIONS AND GRAND TOY COLLECTION
- The Hooey Stick or (Whammy Diddle) Generates Rotation from Vibration
- Amazing Magnetic Carousal Top
- INTERMEDIATE AXIS THEOREM (OR TENNIS RACKET THEOREM)
- MICRO-GRAVITY SPACE STATION FLUID FILLED SPINNING AND SYMPHONY OF SPHERES
- Medium Thickness Fluid Filled Bottles Are Unstable When Spun on Small Axis
- Thin Fluid Filled Bottles are Stable When Spun on Small Axis
- Symphony of Spheres: Water Bubbles Inside Air Bubble Inside Water Bubble
- THE MAGNUS EFFECT, COANDA EFFECT, AND LIFT
- The Magnus Effect (and Long Exposure Photography)
- The Coanda Effect
- Schlieren Optics: Photography and Videography by Detecting Light Refraction
- The Mainstream Science of Lift is Still Largely a Mystery
- VIKTOR SCHAUBERGER, VORTICES IN NATURE, THE WEISSENBERG EFFECT
- Stirring Water Creates a Vortex that Pushes Water Outwards and Inwards
- Connected Vortices that Travel Forward Together in Water?!
- Weissenberg Effect: Some Liquids Spiral Upwards When Stirred
- ANTI-GRAVITY SLINKYS, BEADS, AND LIQUIDS
- Toy Slinkys Levitate During Compression
- Chain of Beads Falls by First Rising Upwards
- Kaye Effect
- CONTACTLESS ROTATION VIA THE EGELY WHEEL (OR PSI WHEEL)
- PENDULUM INERTIAL PROPULSION
- MAGNETS IN ROTATION, FREE ENERGY, AND THE LATE GREAT BRUCE DEPALMA
- Drop Tests for Objects in Rotation and/or Magnetic Repulsion
- Bruce DePalma’s Spinning Ball Drop Test Claims a Spinning Ball Moves Faster
- Boyd Bushman’s Conjoined Magnets in Repulsion Drop Test Claims to Drop Slower
- Dropping a Magnet Tends to Align itself with Earth’s Magnetic Field in Mid-Flight??
- Rotating Alternating Magnetic Polarity Generates Rotation and Heat in Metal
- Smashing Metal Spheres Generates Loud Sound and Heat
- TRUE ANTI-GRAVITY DEMONSTRATIONS AND INVENTIONS
- John Hutchison’s Electromagnetic Levitation and Transmutation of Many Types of Materials
- Hurricanes and Tornados Use More Than Just “Wind” to Lift Heavy Trucks and Trailers
- Russian Inventor Demonstrates High Voltage and Rotation Can Generate Anti-Gravity Lift?
- Sound Levitation, Cymatics, and Amazing Field Geometry
- Tesla Coil Can Generate Loud Sound and Even Modulated to Play Music?!
- WHAT EXACTLY IS GRAVITY, MASS, MAGNETISM, ELECTRICITY, LIGHT, NATURE, OR REALITY?
- Exploring the Concept of “Center of Mass”
- Eric Laithwaite’s Table of Scientific Analogy
- Fourth Law of Motion: Intractance?
- John Duffield’s Theory of Everything and My Impetus to Study Gyroscopes
- David LaPoint’s Game Changing Primer Fields
- Bowl Shaped Magnetic Fields vs Typical Bar Magnet Model
- Magnetic Bowls have a Flip Point and Ability to Eject Matter
- Magnetic Bowls Can Repel Non-Magnetized Steel Balls
- Fundamental Primer Field Model of a Photon and All Matter
- Primer Field Magnetic Bowls Can Contain Rotating Plasma Ball of Energy and Create Energy Ejections
- Primer Field Electromagnetic Model Can Replace Unnecessary “Black Holes, Dark Energy, & Dark Matter”
- Saturn’s Hexagon is No Longer a Mystery!
- Primer Fields View of Light
- Primer Fields View of Constructive vs. Destructive Field Interference
- Primer Fields View of Double Slit Experiment and “Particle-Wave Duality”
- Primer Fields View of the Atomic and the Galactic
- Walter Russell and His “Inverse Primer Field” Experiment
- Hexagons Appear Everywhere!
- WHAT IS THE TRUE MAGNETIC FIELD MODEL?
- Permanent Magnets are Formed by Electrocuting Metal
- Typical Mainstream Magnetic Field Model
- Iron Filings Become Bar Magnets Themselves and In a Fixed Position Upon a Magnetic Field
- Recap of David LaPoint’s Primer Field Bowl Shaped Magnetic Field Model
- The Ferrocell Exhibits a Different Magnetic Field
- Inventor of the Ferrocell Tim Vanderelli and Ferrocell USA
- Comparison of a Ferrocell Field vs. Typical Iron Filings
- Moving Nano-Particles in Ferrocell Showcase Path of “Magnetic Field”?
- Magnets in Repulsion Under a Ferrocell Exhibit an Extra “Black Hole” or “Sink”
- Magnets in Attraction Under a Ferrocell Demonstrate Field Lines Repelling
- The Top View of Magnets Are Very Similar for Different Shapes Under a Ferrocell Even for the Center Empty Space of Ring Magnets!
- Proper Magnetic Setup Can Exhibit Rotational Light Effects When Lasers are Directed to a Ferrocell
- Brian Kerr’s Amazing BitChute Channel Demonstrating the Ferrocell
- Purchase or Create Your Own Ferrocell!
- Make Your Own Ferrocell with a Drop of Blood?!
- Ken Wheeler’s True Magnetism Theory
- MES Criticism of Ken Wheeler’s Incoherent Rants Both in his Videos and his Book on Magnetism
- MES Quick Summary of Ken Wheeler’s Theory of Magnetism
- Dielectricity: The Fundamental Counterspatial Field Modality
- MES BOMBSHELL REALIZATION: Counterspace is Located in the Same Place as Thoughts and Abstractions
- The Torus Ring Slinky Analogy of the Aether and 4 Main Aetheric Fields: Dielectricity, Magnetism, Electricity, and Gravity
- One Counterspace and Infinite Space
- Bismuth, Hypercube, and “Anti-Cube” as Examples of the Dielectric Counterspace
- Nature’s Two Principles of Operation: Force and Motion & Inertia and Acceleration
- Ken’s Genuine Model of a Permanent Magnet
- Experiments with Magnets, Ferrocell, CRT Tube, and Even Gyroscopes Validate Ken’s Magnetism
- Comparison Between Magnetic Models
- The Sport of Basketball Matches with Ken’s Magnetism #MESDuality
- Highlights from Ken Wheeler’s Magnetism
- Water Drop Analogy of “Wave-Particle Duality” of Light
- All Magnets Line Up with a “Gyromagnetic Precession” Angle of 21.246 Degrees?!
- Black Holes are Giant Magnetic Poles
- Charles Steinmetz Century Old Model of Electricity as Made Up of Magnetism and Dielectricity
- Iron Filings Field Geometry Line Up with Steinmetz Dielectric Conjugate of Electricity
- Wood Patterns Appear to Also Show Magneto Dielectric Field Lines?!
- Large Magnet Can Attract “Like Pole” of Smaller Magnet at Centripetal Magnetic Vortex
- “Like Poles” Can Attract If One Steel Barrier is Placed Between but Not Two
- Golden Ratio Field Pressure Mediation, Magnetic Polarity Phase Shift, and Magnetic Exposure Seed Growth
- Magnet Covered with Ferrofluid Glides on Glass Frictionlessly: Is Friction Magnetic?
- Simple Moiré Patterns Demonstrate Amazing Magnetic Field Interference Patterns
- Conservation of the Ether (or Aether) to Replace “Conservation of Energy”
- Mini Gyroscopes Analogy of Magnetism and “Field Incommensurability”
- Gyroscopic Coherency and Applied Counter Spin Causes “Force Cancellation”?
- THE KEY TO GYROSCOPIC MAGIC IS COUNTERSPACE!
- MAGNETISM AND SIMILAR FIELD GEOMETRY APPEARING IN ALL OF NATURE
- STAY TUNED FOR #ANTIGRAVITY PART 7
#MESExperiments: MES Science Experiments Video Series
Earlier this year, and right in the middle of making this very video, I felt the need to upload my science experiments separately as a series of their own. The purpose of these experiments is to provide simple stand-alone experiments that demonstrate physical phenomena in as clear and irrefutable terms as possible; and without any theories. Thus, as Dr. Judy Wood would say:
“Let the evidence speak for itself.”
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLai3U8-WIK0HUHoank-Lj9q6RGAS51QRh
Date >Retrieved: 1 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/xvnUa
Short URL: https://mes.fm/experiments-playlist
Links to All Video and Documents: @mes/list
DRAFT #MESExperiments Unlisted Video Series
In conjunction with my above #MESExperiments, I have also just uploaded hundreds of draft experiments which I have filmed and reviewed in order to get a hands-on feel for many physical phenomena. I have tested many gyro-related objects in many different conditions to rule out or validate any particular theory I have in mind. Although there are hundreds of videos, sifting through them may obtain some hidden gems!
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLai3U8-WIK0FfZ_7hUuyO7xN8lp5oaDiu
Retrieved: 10 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/xubaF
Short URL: https://mes.fm/experiments-draft
Important Notes on Physics and Scientific Exploration
It is important to always have an open mind to new ideas, both from mainstream and alternative sources, but ultimately it is important to have a logically thinking mind. Here are some notes to help.
MES Disclaimer on “Mainstream” Anything and Everything
As always, whenever I cover random topics or make references from "mainstream" sources such as the (Orwellian) Wikipedia, I do so to build (mainstream) context and also for finding different avenues to dig further into. Thus, if you find any references questionable, please let me know as I could always use further video material!
An “Explanation” is Not the Only Possible Explanation, and Certainly Not Necessarily a Causation
An “explanation” depends on the language used, the assumption of the validity of concepts used, and the assumption that the combination of the language and concepts are correct. For example, pushing an object forward causes it to move forward because a “force” is exerted in a forward direction. This simple “explanation” of an object moving forward when pushed depends on the terminology of “force”, “object”, “forward”, etc.; the concept and definition of “force” itself; and the assumption that applying a force will always yield a motion in the direction of it. What about different types of objects, directions, materials, interactions, or even definitions of force, motion, objects, etc.? What about other equivalent “explanations”, entirely different terminology, or even contradictory “explanations”?
For example, does a ball being dropped in a vacuum drop at the same rate or does it differ under different conditions?
Does a spinning ball drop faster than a non-spinning ball? Bruce DePalma claims it does.
Do two magnets attached together in opposing polarity fall slower? Boyd Bushman claims it does.
Do two magnets in opposing polarity but spinning fall upwards? MES thinks it’s worth trying!
What about different materials, elevations, drop speeds, electromagnetic setups, etc.?
Thus, any and all “explanations” should be viewed as attempts at grasping the actual causation or mechanism for any phenomena. Viewing otherwise, especially in regard to mainstream explanations from authority figures, is akin to religious faith in doctrines doctors or professors profess during seminars or seminaries.
MES AXIOM: All “Explanations” are Just Approximations to Exact Natural Phenomena
This axiom, or self-evident truth, is a statement which I view as inherently valid. All explanations are merely approximations to nature. The better the explanation, the more accurate it is. Note that all scenarios need to be accounted for to avoid being locally accurate but globally inaccurate, as shown in the figure below.
Explanation 1 is very accurate initially, but inaccurate globally.
Explanation 2 is very accurate in the last phase, but inaccurate globally.
Explanation 3 is globally accurate, but locally not as accurate as Explanations 1 and 2.
Thus, even globally very accurate explanations or theories, can still be relatively inaccurate locally. Fine-tuned or revamping the theory is required.
Note that even the experimental data collection of the natural phenomena needs to be accurate, and fully tested. Otherwise, perfectly valid theories and explanations can be made, but for non-existent phenomena.
The Importance of Entertaining Different Interpretations of Physical Phenomena
When describing physical phenomena, it is always important to first think for yourself as to the behavior of an experiment, then consult with as many different interpretations as you can.
For example, a simple ball that is dropped from a height will always bounce less than its initial height until it is stationary at the bottom. The mainstream "Conservation of Energy" assumption states that the total potential energy is transformed to kinetic energy, and vice versa, but due to "friction" and "air resistance" the ball always reaches a shorter height than its previous.
But another way to look at this is that manually lifting the ball to its initial maximum height requires less energy than the combined energy required to manually lift the ball to the later shorter heights. Is this then #FreeEnergy?
Now this is some epic outside-the-box thinking!
Think Outside the Box
Is a matchstick burning itself to create the flame? Or, as Bruce DePlama viewed, is the matchstick acting as an antenna receiver releasing energy from the surrounding aetheric energy underlying all of life; like a phone interacting with a Wi-Fi internet field?
Clearing Eric Laithwaite’s Name from Slander and Ignorance
When Eric Laithwaite first stated that a gyroscope precesses with no centripetal, centrifugal, or angular momentum, that was enough for me. This was equivalent to coming across the front cover of Dr. Judy Wood’s book “Where Did the Towers Go?”. In both cases, I knew instantly that an adventure would ensue for me because what they demonstrated was the impossible.
The impossible became possible.
Both cases, I realized that I knew and could easily prove that they were right, and hence the entirety of the world was wrong. But in the case of Eric Laithwaite, although he was ridiculed and smeared by “Royal” fake science institutions such as the “Royal Society”, it became apparent that even Eric tried to stray away from his initial enthusiastic discoveries that Newton needed correction; and yes, Newton needs correction indeed.
In this section, I go over the mainstream narrative of Eric Laithwaite’s “controversial” life and clear up much of the slander, lies, and ignorance that is thrown at him.
Eric Laithwaite's Obituary by Imperial College is "Coincidentally" Missing Something…
For over 50 years Eric Laithwaite was obsessed with gyroscopes and for 20 of those years he was a professor at Imperial College. Yet in one of the most pathetic displays of history re-writing, Imperial College does not even include the word “gyroscopes” in his obituary, or post-death article regarding his life.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/publications/reporterarchive/0055/feat03.htm
Retrieved: 25 March 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/CmYb6
You literally can't make this up!
The “Royal” Family’s Prince Charles was a Big Fan of Eric’s Gyros!
In a 1980 interview, Eric mentions how even the “Royal” family’s Prince Charles was interested in Eric’s gyroscopes, and in particular handling the 50-lb gyro wheel himself.
Retrieved: 26 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/VwwK3
Eric even mentions that he could almost lift the gyro wheel with just one finger?!
A rowing boat with oars that don’t touch the water; paddling on the waters of the aether.
Also, interesting to see Eric’s mindset in updating the “laws” of motion.
So, Prince Charles snuck into Eric's lab to play with his Gyroscopes and 50 pound spinning wheel, but Imperial College won't mention the word "gyro" in his obituary.
Eric Laithwaite Lifting Heavy Gyros with his Pinky Finger!
Eric has showcased lifting a 40 lb and 50 lb large gyro wheel as if it was as light as a feather, and then even made the remark that he could almost lift it with one finger. And it just so happens that I have found a photo of him doing just that, although with a smaller gyro wheel, and he is lifting it with just his pinky finger!
http://swissenschaft.ch/tesla/content/T_Library/L_Theory/Gravity/AntiGravity%20and%20Gravity%201.pdf
Retrieved: 21 April 2019
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190422001349/http://swissenschaft.ch/tesla/content/T_Library/L_Theory/Gravity/AntiGravity%20and%20Gravity%201.pdf
Local PDF Download Link: https://1drv.ms/b/s!As32ynv0LoaIh78ZJTLz1k-ae0b9ag
Gravity and Antigravity (Part 1 of 2) by David Pratt
(Page 19)
Fig. 2.7 One of Eric Laithwaite’s gyroscope demonstrations. The top is spinning at 2000 revolutions per minute and is rising quite rapidly up a helical path.3
I couldn’t find the exact figure for the weight of this gyro wheel, but I believe it is similar or the same as the one he used in his 1974 lecture so it should weigh about 24 pounds (or 10.88 kg) including the shaft. Eric Laithwaite is an absolute magician!
Harvey Fiala’s Inertial Propulsion Device
Furthermore, a patent on an inertial propulsion device by the Harvey Fiala and family mentions that Eric Laithwaite lifted a 40 lb wheel over his head with his little finger?!
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090183951A1/en
Retrieved: 8 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/e4FV4
PDF Download Link: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/14/48/67/bdf0c935f646c1/US20090183951A1.pdf
Inertial Propulsion Device Patent by Harvey, John, and John-Arthur Fiala
Page 17 (PDF Page 64)
Consider the demonstration that Dr. Eric Laithwaite once gave. At the end of a three foot rod he raised a 40 lb rotor over his head with the little finger on his right hand. How was this done? The answer is by applying a small horizontal torque to its axis. During the time that the torque was applied the weight essentially disappeared and all the weight Dr. Laithwaite had to lift with his little finger was the rod that weighed about 3 lbs. If the rod itself were spinning (and precessing with the rotor) with only the hand-grip not spinning, then Dr. Laithwaite would have had to lift only the weight of the hand-grip, which would be only a few ounces. Suppose the forcing torque could be sustained such that the weight remained at essentially zero, then it would take only a small rocket to lift the 3 lb rod with its 40 lb spinning rotor attached to it. This would still require a small “brute force” rocket, but the weight needing to be lifted is reduced by a factor of more than ten. Of course it would require an additional mechanism to implement the application of a continuous torque on such a rotor.
Note that Harvey Fiala is a retired rocket scientist and also worked for NASA; yet like many other scientists, he realized the world of gyroscopes was being overlooked. Here is a great documentary of his life as well as the inertial propulsion device from his patent.
Retrieved: 8 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/nTFce
Note the mechanics in the above inertial propulsion system, which are very real and which I will cover further in this video. Hindering precession by the raised curved platform as the gyroscope precesses about it while an extra wheel is clipped onto the gyroscope and rolls on the platform causes the gyroscope to magically move forward; essentially utilizing the ability of a gyroscope to magically disappear “mass” in precession and reappear without reaction when precession is hindered.
Veritasium’s Disgraceful and Blatant Coverup of Eric Laithwaite’s Irrefutable Anti-Gravity Wheel
This video was what catapulted me into the gyroscope research field. How can such a huge YouTube channel give such a bogus misrepresentation of gyroscopes’ irrefutable anti-gravity properties?
Retrieved: 23 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/EpjmP
Is this a sick joke?! This is as clear as the coverup gets. Veritasium literally cuts out the part in which Eric Laithwaite could barely lift a non-spinning wheel with two hands directly above the center of mass! Why is Veritasium discussing this bogus irrelevant "harder to lift when torqued" nonsense?
Veritasium Literally Suggests that Eric Laithwaite is a Con-man Using a “Trick” to Purposely Mislead People
Veritasium literally is claiming Eric Laithwaite performed a “trick” in magically lifting the heavy gyro wheel over his head… This makes me sick…
Veritasium is actually suggesting that Eric Laithwaite spent his entire life obsessed with gyroscopes and at the ridicule and detriment of his career all because of a “trick”? A trick to do what?!
Gyroscopes Rise When the Precession is Hurried and Drops When it is Slowed
The only accurate thing covered by Veritasium is the (magical) property of gyroscopes rising when precession is forced and dropping when it is hindered or stopped. But even this property is casually downplayed without any explanation, while making bogus statements that the “weight doesn’t change” when a gyroscope rises.
Am I the only the person that finds this amazing?!
How Can the Center of Mass Rise Without Changing the Weight?!
During the making of this video, I had a realization that even Veritasium’s statement that forced precession makes the gyroscope rise but “without losing weight” is highly flawed and entirely misleading.
Think about what he is saying here. What does the gyroscope itself rising have to do weight? In (mainstream) physics, if the weight of the gyroscope were to increase, there must be a “force” exerted upwards to lift it up.
Firstly, it is not clear where the center of mass in Veritasium’s gimbal set up is, but it is the same as the gimbled gyroscope setup I think it should be somewhere as shown below.
The center of mass is close to the fulcrum thus it is not rising as fast as it would be without the counterweight. An increase in the center of mass should be associated with measured weight changes and depends on the precision of the weigh scale and rate of rising. The weigh scale used by Veritasium is not even precise enough to detect imbalance in the horizontal force applied, which explains why no weight change was measured; i.e. Veritasium is literally tipping the scales in favor of misleading bogus fake science.
As for Veritasium’s large gyro wheel weight measurements, the weight fluctuations were too large to gather any coherent understanding of what is going on.
Why can’t he just use a similar controlled small gyroscope set up and at various forced precession speeds using a precise weigh scale to actually understand what is happening?! Is real science too much to ask for a 5+ million subscribers (fake) science YouTube channel?
If he is arguing that the weight doesn’t change, then how is the center of mass rising without any change to the weight measurements?! Has the world gone mad?!
MES POST FILMING REALIZATION: Veritasium Showed Clips of the Weight Changing
After I was done recording #AntiGravity Part 6, I started reviewing over the video and then realized that in Veritasium’s video, there were two segments that showed weight changed due to forced precession of the gyroscope.
The following clip shows the weight change from 431.9 g to 431.0 g.
And this clip shows the weight change from 431.9 g to 442.2 g, presumably the bigger weight increase from the gyro losing spin speed.
Now which is it? Does the weight change or not? Why is Veritasium rushing to provide bogus cherry-picked statements with no context regarding spin speed, location of center of mass, amount of applied load, etc.? Also, interesting, why do they speak over and cut out the part where Eric Laithwaite state the gyro demonstrates zero centrifugal force? Why are using a gimbal setup that restricts the gyro setup from moving vertical upwards at the fulcrum?
What are these clowns hiding?
Conventional Physics Requires Weight Scale Reading to Change as Center of Mass Increases
Consider the weight scale reading of jumping.
Jumping off the ground requires exerting a force on the ground that is greater than the weight of the person, thus jumping is due to the reaction of applied force from pushing off by straightening knees and feet, etc. Thus, in the process of applying the force to the ground, the weight scale reading will increase. Then as lift is being generated the weight reading will decrease with upwards motion until reading zero when air born.
NBA players such as Zach Lavine and LeBron James can have a jump force of over 1000 pounds!
Retrieved: 22 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/nVT2R
This is an example of “action has equal reaction”. The jump force is so high that it allows NBA players to jump ridiculously high!
This is more clearly demonstrated by a simple balancing toy rocking back and forth.
Retrieved: 22 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/vOdNk
The weight fluctuates by about 5 grams and ultimately stabilizes at 63.36 g once the center of mass is stationary.
The balancing toy man rocks back and forth because the center of mass is actually below the feet and whenever it swings, it rises higher and thus wants to move back down to the lower center of mass position; essentially like a pendulum or swing.
A weight scale reading should measure the highest weight as the swingers swing downwards at the lowest center of mass and have the lowest weight reading as they swing higher upwards. In this case it is the mass or “inertia” of the swingers themselves causing upwards movement thus countering their own weight.
MES BOMBSHELL REALIZATION: Simple Forced Precession Has Always Demonstrated Reactionless Inertial Propulsion!
As will be shown later throughout this video, forced precession can indeed generate lift, and hence a weigh scale would measure less weight as it rises upwards off the ground. Whether lift is generated, or the gyro “just” magically rises as in the demonstration by the clueless clowns at Veritasium, forced precession by a horizonal force is generating vertical upwards rising motion, but without an expected increase in weight as would be expected from simply standing up quickly on a weigh scale. “Lift” is analogous to jumping off the ground, and “magically rising” is analogous to simply standing up from a crouched position; but unlike their counterparts, in both cases the gyroscope is rising upwards without any reaction to any downwards weigh-scale-reading-increasing force.
Reactionless propulsion has always been demonstrated right in front of our very eyes.
What good are eyes if the mind can’t comprehend?
Veritasium Suggests that Eric Laithwaite is Lying About the Gyro Wheel Feeling as Light as a Feather
Veritasium is taking his slander of Eric Laithwaite further by alluding that Eric was exaggerating / misleading / lying when he said it felt as light as a feather…
As Eric mentioned earlier that he can lift the gyro wheel almost with one finger, and given Veritasium’s horrible "explanation" video, frankly I believe Veritasium is straight up lying to our faces.
The Gradual Evolution of My Awareness and Mindset
Also, as I mentioned earlier in this video, the making of this video involved a gradual evolution of my mindset, knowledge, and awareness, which is none-more evident that in my earlier scorching comments towards Veritasium.
These were some scorching comments, but my mindset has shifted in trying to explain how “scientists” could push such bogus coverup of gyro magic, either intentionally or not; although I am confident this particular video was as clear as a coverup as it gets.
Now regardless of such a blatant coverup by Veritasium, the question that rises is:
*Why don’t people see through this bogus non-explanation?! *
Literally “anti-gravity” is demonstrated right before our very eyes, even if some “authority” figure says otherwise. I don’t care what anyone’s definition of “anti-gravity” is, lifting a spinning gyro like a feather passes my definition.
Veritasium Making a Mockery of Physics, Science, and Humanity
Veritasium “coincidentally” left out the part of Eric Laithwaite’s 40 pound wheel demonstration that showed he couldn’t lift the wheel vertically with two hands, as opposed to Veritasium holding the wheel sideways for some bizarre reason. Note also that Veritasium cuts out the part where Eric states the gyro wheel is displaying zero centrifugal force as it is not pulling his arm outwards; which further alludes to this being a blatant coverup job by Veritasium.
Retrieved: 23 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/HWJNN
Can you see the coverup? Do I need to state any further?
Disgraceful.
MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Gyroscopes Can Rise Upwards All on Their Own!
Veritasium accused of Eric Laithwaite of “pushing” the gyroscope which makes it magically rise upwards whereas without this magical “push”, Eric couldn’t lift the same but non-spinning gyro with two hands. But even without this non-existent “trick”, gyroscopes can rise upwards, even at extremely steep angles.
Retrieved: 23 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/uI2dJ
Are you seeing what I am seeing?! The gyroscope is magically rising. Literal sorcery right before our eyes.
Mainstream Sources and Even Mainstream Alternative Sources Didn’t Think This Was Possible
This discovery was entirely accidental! I had no reason to even consider gyroscopes magically rising because there was virtually no source online that even made mention of this. From Wikipedia and every University in the entire world, to even the great Eric Laithwaite, this simple property of gyroscopes was hidden in plain sight.
Imagine if Eric Laithwaite demonstrated just this experiment during his Christmas lectures. How would the world have been changed?
A giant gyro wheel that lifts itself?! Now that is some real science!
MES Note: This photo appears eerily made for this exact photoshop…
Eric Laithwaite’s Missing 1966 First Ever Televised Christmas Lecture
Interestingly, the above image is actually from Eric Laithwaite’s 1966 Christmas Lecture, which just so happens to be the first ever televised episode. It is also part of 31 episodes that are now missing.
https://www.rigb.org/christmas-lectures/missing-lectures
Retrieved: 10 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/oxckT
…
We are in the process of making the entire BBC archive of these broadcasts available on our website for the first time. However 31 episodes broadcast between 1966 and 1973 are missing. Included in the missing episodes is footage of Sir David Attenborough not seen since it was first broadcast live nearly 50 years ago.
The CHRISTMAS LECTURES have been delivered every year since 1825, making them the longest running series of scientific lectures in the world. They were the first science programme broadcast on the BBC, in 1936, and having featured on TV every year since 1966 they are also the second-longest running continuously broadcast science TV show. The CHRISTMAS LECTURES aim has always been to present an accessible and entertaining way to engage with science.
…
The 31 missing CHRISTMAS LECTURES are made up of 5 complete series of 6 lectures each, plus a single episode of Sir David Attenborough’s much loved 1973 series on ‘The language of animals’:
1966 – Engineer in wonderland – Eric Laithwaite
1967 – The intelligent eye – Richard Gregory
1969 – Time machines – George Porter
1970 – Monkeys without tails: a giraffe’s eye view of man – John Napier
1971 – Sounds of music: The science of tones and tunes – Charles Taylor
1973 – The language of animals (1 episode) – Sir David Attenborough…
How can I help?
You can help our missing lectures campaign in several ways:
- Have a search through your attics, basements, and rarely used cupboards to see if you have a recorded copy of any of the missing lectures
- Ask your older relatives if they might have copies
- Spead the word about the campaign on social media using #missingxmaslectures
And if you find a missing lecture or any other related material? Get in touch with us at ri@ri.ac.uk or call us on 0207 409 2992.
If you can find any of these episodes, please contact me as well at contact@mes.fm.
MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Gyroscopes Can Also Rise “Downwards”!
My first major discovery was that gyroscopes rise magically upwards. But much later on and in the making of this very document, I came across another discovery that literally flipped even my own already flipped view of gyroscopes. The above experiment showed that gyroscopes rise upwards when they should instead fall, but the following experiment does the opposite and drops when it should rise.
Retrieved: 10 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/GEJlF
Note that the counterweight setup is such that the gyroscope hung by a string should remain level horizontally, but instead it magically drops as it (also magically) precesses.
What in the world is happening here!? Adding a counterweight or counter-torque to act against gravity has a reverse effect on gyros; in other words, welcome to the wonderful upside-down world of gyroscopes!
Gyroscopes have the ability to appear lighter… and heavier!
Note that the gyroscope with counterweight precesses in reverse direction relative to precession without the counterweight. But in both cases, the gyro appears to want to align spin and precession directions. This is essentially like a “gyro-compass”, which I will cover later in this video.
Mainstream Wikipedia Overview of Eric Laithwaite’s Life
Here is a quick overview of the caricature of Eric Laithwaite’s life by the oblivious editors at Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Laithwaite
Retrieved: 26 March 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/e7Rjq
Eric Laithwaite
Eric Roberts Laithwaite (14 June 1921 – 27 November 1997) was an English electrical engineer, known as the "Father of Maglev" for his development of the linear induction motor and maglev rail system.
MES Note: Maglev is derived from “Magnetic Levitation”.
…
He also worked at applying linear motors on the Tracked Hovercraft until its cancellation. In the 1980s, he was involved in creating a device to extract energy from sea waves (see patent GB2062114);[2] although the technology was successful in trials, it could not be made storm proof, hence it never became a commercial success.
Laithwaite was an able communicator who made many television appearances. Memorable among these were his Royal Institution Christmas Lectures to young people in 1966 and 1974. The latter of these made much of the surprising phenomena of gyroscopes.
In 1974, Laithwaite was invited by the Royal Institution to give a talk on a subject of his own choosing. He decided to lecture about gyroscopes, a subject in which he had only recently become interested. His interest had been aroused by an amateur inventor named Alex Jones, who contacted Laithwaite about a reactionless propulsion drive he (Jones) had invented.
MES Note: The name “Alex Jones” just has to pop up… LOL
Also note the disgraceful downplaying and unreferenced assumption of his experience with gyroscopes; and even to insinuating that Alex Jones is merely an “amateur”.
After seeing a demonstration of Jones's small prototype (a small wagon with a swinging pendulum which advanced intermittently along a table top), Laithwaite became convinced that "he had seen something impossible". In his lecture before the Royal Institution he claimed that gyroscopes weigh less when spinning and, to demonstrate this, he showed that he could lift a spinning gyroscope mounted on the end of a rod easily with one hand but could not do so when the gyroscope was not spinning. This was part subject of the BBC science series 'Horizon - 2015-2016: 2. Project Greenglow - The Quest for Gravity Control'.
At this time, Laithwaite suggested that Newton's laws of motion could not account for the behaviour of gyroscopes and that they could be used as a means of reactionless propulsion. The members of the Royal Institution rejected his ideas and his lecture was not published. (This was the first and only time an invited lecture to the Royal Institution has not been published.) They were subsequently published independently as Engineer Through The Looking-Glass.
MES Note: The “Royal” Institution is a disgrace to humanity.
Despite this rejection and the fact that Laithwaite later acknowledged that gyroscopes behave fully in accord with Newtonian mechanics,[3] he continued to explore gyroscopic behaviour, maintaining the belief that some form of reactionless propulsion could be derived from them. Laithwaite set up Gyron Ltd with William Dawson and, in 1993, applied for a patent entitled "Propulsion System". See US5860317,[4] [5][6] for the US, UK and PCT application for patents respectively. A United States Patent, Number 5860317, was granted in 1999.
MES Note: This is one of the most disgusting piles of garbage ever written. As I will demonstrate further below, Eric Laithwaite developed his own theory of “Mass Transfer” to explain the fact, not “belief”, of reactionless propulsion. Eric claimed this concept was still in accordance with Newton’s sacred “Laws”, but nonetheless against mainstream physics, and because he assumed the notion of “conservation of angular momentum”. But even this “conservation” principle is as non-existent as “angular momentum”, as I will demonstrate later in this video.
Although Laithwaite is best known for his ideas concerning gyroscopes, he also held an idea concerning moths. It was that they communicate via ultra short wave electromagnetic phenomena (Inventor in the Garden of Eden, E R Laithwaite 1994 page 199). He persisted in this belief even after the pheromone which they actually use had been isolated[7] and could even be bought "over-the-counter" — seemingly contradicting his account. However, he had argued in 1960[8] that there must be two different mechanisms for detecting pheromones: (i) The orthodox account of chemical-gradients (effective only at short-range), and (ii) some method for long-distance detection (> "100 yards") even when the wind was in an unfavourable direction — and the only credible solution then had to be electromagnetic (probably infrared). This explanation did not account for where the necessary energy might come from — a matter later taken up by P. S. Callahan, though he too suffered considerable controversy (largely due to all contestants overlooking Laithwaite's "(i)/(ii)" distinction).[citation needed]
MES Note: Everything is electromagnetism.
Laithwaite also had a habit of championing the ideas of amateurs over those of experts. Such ideas included the ones that there are three types of magnetism and that the "196 problem" is not a problem: terminating after relatively few iterations (in fact, the current count runs to millions of iterations – with no sign of termination).
MES Note: When “experts” are referenced, bogus fake science usually follows.
Laithwaite retired from Imperial College in 1986, but was offered no other research post until 1990, when he became Visiting Professor at the University of Sussex. He was persuaded by George Scelzo of PRT Maglev Systems in Chicago to submit a proposal to NASA for an electromagnetic launch assist track originally inspired by John Mankins of NASA. He died within weeks of the contract being awarded.
The initial stage has been successfully continued by William Dawson and the contract with PRT for this development is still active. The track uses both levitation coils and linear induction motors and it can be seen in the "Magnets" episode of Modern Marvels on the History channel.
Magnetic Launch Assist System
…
Published works
Articles
- A Radiation Theory of the Assembling of Moths The Entomologist, June–July 1960, vol.93(1166–1167), pp. 113–117, 133–137 +plate(III)
- Eric Laithwaite, "Linear motors for high-speed vehicles", New Scientist, 28 June 1973, p. 802-805
- "Eric Laithwaite defies Newton", New Scientist, 14 November 1974, p470
- The multiplication of bananas by umbrellas Electrical Review, 20–27 December 1974, pp. 822–824
- The bigger they are, the harder they fall Electrical Review, 14 February 1975, pp. 40–42
- 1975 – A space odyssey Electrical Review, 28 March – 4 April 1975, pp. 398–400
- Roll Isaac, roll – Part I Electrical Review, Vol. 204, No. 7, 16 February 1979, pp. 38–41
- Roll Isaac, roll – Part II Electrical Review, Vol. 204, No. 11, 16 March 1979, pp. 31–33
- Give us a sign Electrical Review, Vol. 207, No. 3, 18 July 1980, pp. 40–42
- "Gaze in wonder: an engineer looks at biology", (1988), Speculations in Science and Technology, vol.11(4), 341–345.
- The influence of Michael Faraday on power engineering. Power engineering journal, Vol.5, No. 5, September 1991, pp. 209–219
Books
- Propulsion without wheels (1965)
- Induction machines for special purposes (1966)
- The engineer in wonderland (1967) — The Royal Institution of Great Britain Christmas lectures, 1966/67. With illustrations, including a portrait.
- The linear motor and its application to tracked hovercraft (1971)
- Linear electric motors (1971) Mills & Boon Monographs and Technical Library
- Experiments with a linear induction motor (1971)
- Exciting electrical machines (1974)
- All things are possible: an engineer looks at research and development (1976)
- Transport without wheels ed. (1977)
- How to invent (1977) co-written by Meredith Thring
- Why does a glow-worm glow? (1977) illustrated by Mike Jackson
- Electric energy: its generation, transmission and use (1980) co-written by L.L. Freris
- Engineer through the looking glass (1980)— a revised and expanded version of his Royal Institution of Great Britain Christmas lectures, 1974/75. With illustrations, including a portrait.
- Invitation to engineering (1984)
- Shape is important (1986)
- Force: a basic ingredient (1986)
- A history of linear electric motors (1986)
- Using materials (1987)
- Size is vital (1987)
- An inventor in the Garden of Eden (1994)
References
(1) Jump up^ Laithwaite, E.R. "The Goodness of a machine" PROC IEE March 1965 Vol. 112 pp 328-541
(2) Jump up^ [1][permanent dead link]
(3) Jump up^ Interview in Heretics programme BBC TV 1994 (24 mins in)
(4) Jump up^ "Propulsion system".
(5) Jump up^ GB2289757 [permanent dead link]
(6) Jump up^ WO9530832[permanent dead link]
(7) Jump up^ "Isolation of the sex pheromone of the moth Argyroploce leucotreta". Journal of Insect Physiology. 20: 441–450. doi:10.1016/0022-1910(74)90152-8.
(8) Jump up^ http://www.ondwelle.com/Laithw.pdfExternal links
- Obituary at Keelynet
- Obituary of Professor Eric Laithwaite in the Independent
- NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project: COMMON ERRORS: Gyroscopic Antigravity a NASA page discussing Laithwaite's demonstration.
- The Foster-Miller Maglifter project, which has a picture of their linear motor subscale system.
- The Royal Institution’s 1974-75 Christmas Lecture video
- This is the Heretic program about Eric Laithewaite towards the end of his career. It explains the battle he had trying to get the scientific community to accept or even investigate his ideas.
- Repetition of Laithwaite's experiments, with explanations
MES Note: These "explanations" are on par with Veritasium’s bogus fake science.
- "How Popperian positivism killed a good-but-poorly-presented theory — Insect Communication by Infrared". Ondwelle: Melbourne. (Dec.2005) — a critique of a "debate" over insects and infrared, in which Laithwaite was cited, and yet partly ignored!
- "Critique of the 1977 debate on infra-red 'olfaction' in insects — (Diesendorf v. P.S.Callahan)"; Conference of the Australian Entomological Society; at Orange, NSW, (30 September 2008).
- Imperial college 1984 video of Laithwaite's magnetic river in operation
Eric Laithwaite Attempts to Explain Gyroscopic Inertial Propulsion in Terms of Unconventional Newtonian Mechanics
If you had just read the Wikipedia article, you may have the impression that Eric Laithwaite “retracted” his views on gyroscopes and Newtonian mechanics, but nothing could be further from the truth. Eric’s demonstrations that gyroscope precess with zero centripetal force or angular momentum, thus effectively behaving massless, are irrefutable and right in front of your faces; however, you just may need to remove the mainstream fake science indoctrination from your eyes to see it. In later years Eric claims that Newtonian mechanics still could apply to gyroscopes by assuming that momentum can interchange between linear and angular momentum so long as the total “momentum” is “conserved”.
Here is the Wikipedia reference that claims Eric “retracted” his views on gyroscopes. Note that the video is not available on YouTube because the $5 billion USD+ taxpayer funded BBC has a copyright claim on knowledge. #DefundBBC
Wikipedia Reference 3: Interview in Heretics programme BBC TV 1994 (24 mins in)
URL:
Retrieved: 26 March 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/8WuyQ
Luckily it is available on Dailymotion.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ya0y4
Retrieved: 26 March 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/cPPsv
Backup Video Download Link: https://1drv.ms/v/s!As32ynv0LoaIh5sxvfDT9KkkVF1Hog
There are some amazing insights and experiments demonstrated in this video. But as usual, clueless mainstream BBC commentary and bogus “critics” shown throughout the video taint what otherwise is a must-see video.
“Mass Transfer” or Reactionless Inertial Propulsion Experiment
Here is the experiment that Eric Laithwaite performed to show that precessing gyroscopes can displace mass. In the experiment he has two gyro wheels hanging by wires and connected with a lightweight support. Initially the spinning wheels are pushed outwards by a compressed spring thus giving a small boost in the direction of precession. The center of mass of is near the relatively heavy wheels themselves. As can be seen, the center of mass, shown by the white line moves forward in the direction of precession, even though there was no horizontal force given.
This experiment was way more complex than it is needed to be, and the wires/support setup may affect how the center of mass is positioned; but nonetheless the result is as expected, the center of mass magically moves due to precession and not any linear forward force.
Essentially, Eric was trying to create a low friction environment to show that there is no “reaction” to the movement of the center of mass. But a better way to demonstrate this is just any basic gyroscope and placed on a block of ice, as the next section shows.
MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Gyroscopes Can Precess Upwards on Ice with Zero Centripetal Force
Eric Laithwaite’s “mass transfer” experiment is just an overly complicated low friction environment with an unnecessary second gyroscope and an unnecessary initial lateral spring force. All you need is a gyroscope precessing on your finger to notice the gyroscope behaves massless. But for the “skeptics”, an ice block will do.
In this particular experiment the gyroscope is placed horizontally to better showcase the “mass transfer”, but the angle was too steep to rise for this particular gyroscope.
Retrieved: 19 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/fNvIk
Notice how the ice-block doesn’t move, while the center of mass, which is located near the center of the gyroscope is moving freely around the ice-block.
For this particular gyroscope setup, at a higher angle the gyroscope can magically rise upwards!
Retrieved: 11 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/EnQ5B
What sorcery is this?!
In both cases, as the gyroscope speed slows down there is no more “mass transfer” as the gyroscope now precesses directly about its center of mass and demonstrated by the ice block moving around.
This is essentially what Eric Laithwaite was trying to demonstrate. Had his gyro wheels not spun, the lateral spring force would simply push the wheels outwards and then back to center as the supporting base moves around 180 degrees to the other side.
Eric Laithwaite’s Mass Transfer Paper and Universal Equation for Gyroscopes
Eric Laithwaite wrote an “Introduction” to his mass transfer concept and argued that the Newtonian “conservation of momentum” principle was enough to comply with the mainstream scientific clergy; which Eric learned that even this wasn’t enough. Using this new concept, he also formulated a formula to try to explain both the precession of gyroscopes due to applied torques, and the generation of torque due to applied or forced precession.
http://www.gyroscopes.org/masstran.asp
Retrieved: 6 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/WEPD7
…
The work we have been doing at the University of Sussex with gyroscopes, or, in the general sense, flywheels, enables mass to be moved linearly without reaction with the surrounding medium, or ether, and without projection or loss of mass from the total. Where there is an existing medium, i.e. on land, sea or air, the rate of generation of momentum appears to be unexciting. However, in the absence of a medium, in space, out of easy reach and requiring extended ability to manoeuvre, this system does not merely come into its own, it is unique. For the first time, it offers a means of imparting linear movement by the delivery of small “parcels” of instantaneous momentum to a vehicle in a manner not too dissimilar from the current way in which space vehicles are re-oriented by the application of the principle of the conservation of angular momentum. Now we can offer a device that will enable a vehicle metaphorically to “Swim through Space”.
MES Note: The ether, or aether, exists.
EXPLANATORY INTRODUCTION TO MASS DISPLACEMENT
MOVING AN OBJECT WITHOUT PUSHING IT.
When we wish to move an object that appears to be stationary with respect to us, it is our common experience that it is necessary to apply a force to cause it to do so. This is because the object possesses mass which gives to the object that characteristic of resisting having its velocity changed, known as inertia. The relationship between these properties was discerned by Newton and is usually written (Force) = (Mass) x (Acceleration).
What Newton actually stated was:- "The force is proportional to the rate of change of Momentum"
So what is momentum, why bother with it?
MES Note: What exactly is “momentum”? What is “mass”? These questions are as big as life itself.
…
MES Note: If the masses are not spinning, what should happen is the masses move outwards linearly and the base moves horizontally to the other side as the masses come back to the original position.
…
MES Note: If the masses are instead spinning, the entire setup moves linearly, thus the center of mass has changed.
To get an impressive reduction in centrifugal force you need a large heavy wheel with a very thin rim, virtually no spokes or middle, running very fast and being precessed slowly round a small radius.
Experimentally, with a high quality wheel, precessing on a radius about twice that of the wheel, with a spin in excess of 100 times the rate of precession, we have recorded centrifugal forces of less than one tenth of that anticipated from calculation.
MES Note: Amazing results! Now the question to ask is, where is this mystical “centrifugal force” disappearing to?
…
Toy gyroscopes, made to precess round models of the Eiffel Tower, do so as a result of the torque MgR (see figure 9) derived from the mass of the gyroscope, and the thrust upward exerted by the support on the tower. Experience with gyroscopes of this type gives rise to the idea that torque is the cause of a precession.
…
In the same way, a gyroscope can be forced to precess in a predetermined path. If the torque so generated is resisted by the framework (or even another gyroscope) and is measured, it will be found that the gyroscope will have demanded just the torque required to make it so precess and that the precession is, in this case the cause of the torque.
…
If the spin momentum of the wheel is in direction X, (see figure 10), then the torque applied about an axis in Y, at right angles to the plane of the drawing, will produce precession about an axis such as Z, perpendicular to the plane of the drawing.
Interestingly, the gyroscope appears to be unconcerned about the precise location of the axis in Y0, which may be at Y1 or Y2 or etc. . . Yn, so long as they are parallel. Likewise the resulting precession can take place about Z0, or Z1 or Z2 or etc. . . Zn. No particular axis in Y is related to any particular axis of Z.
The following equation is universal.
Torque (about any axis in the Y plane) = Angular-Momentum (of the gyro) x Precessional Angular-Velocity (about any axis in the Z plane)
…
This is a very interesting paper! I believe he is on the right track regarding his “universal equation” which links together important (but not all) aspects of gyroscopes; which I have also noticed in my experiments:
- “Torque” either applied to or produced by the gyroscope.
- Application of torque induces precession.
- Application of precession induces torque.
- Gyro mass and spin speed (i.e. “spin angular momentum”).
- Precessional spin speed.
The concept of generating torque from precession, instead of the more common precession from torque, is one of the most magical and under-investigated aspects of gyroscopes! In fact, as I will go over later in this video, another inventor, the late great Francis McCabe, shows that forced precession can generate even upwards of 1000 times torque over-unity! Thus, I think Eric Laithwaite may have to retract his catering of the assumption of “conservation of momentum”. In fact, I will demonstrate later that “angular momentum” and thus “momentum” in general are just illusions, as is the “conservation” of these illusions itself an illusion.
Also, another aspect that Eric Laithwaite, as well as the entire world, has not accounted for is my bombshell gyroscope rising upwards (and downwards) experiments. Minimizing “rotational friction” causes gyroscopes to magically rise, but even the smallest amount would prevent this. I think a more complete picture of the magical behavior of gyroscopes may require answering the most fundamental question in all of physics: what exactly is “mass”?
Eric Laithwaite Demonstrates That Forced Precession Can Generate Lift!
As Eric Laithwaite formulated in his mass transfer theory, forced precession can induce torque on the gyroscope, even lift the entire gyroscope upwards.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ya0y4
Note that he uses the outer casing to push the gyroscope rod that extends behind it, thus “hurrying the precession”.
Precession = Lift.
Here is an illustration of the spin and precession directions, and the accompanying lift.
Fascinating stuff!
Eric Laithwaite’s Initial Anti-Gravity Wheel Weighed 50 Pounds!
I had thought that Eric only performed his anti-gravity wheel with a 40 lb wheel as shown in #AntiGravity Part 2, but in fact he had done it first with a 50 lb wheel!
Now the question that even Eric would have to ask himself: How can forced precession with one or even two hands generate enough magical “torque” to lift a 50 lb wheel as if it was a feather?
Cambridge University’s Bogus "Repetition of Laithwaite's experiments, with explanations"
From the Wikipedia article’s “External Links” is a link to writings by Emma Wilson from Cambridge University, and just as with the disgraceful, and quite frankly pure evil, coverup of the irrefutable Anti-Gravity Wheel by Veritasium, she looks to continue the theme of blatant gyro magic coverup.
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/gyroscopes/htmlgyroscopes.html
Retrieved: 18 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/8hRFT
Virtual Gyroscopes
A gyroscope consists of a spinning mass, mounted so its axis of rotation can change. Examples include toys such as spinning tops and powerballs. Gyroscopic effects are also key to things like yo-yo's and frisbees. We are not regularly exposed to the gyroscopic effect and its motion so gyroscopes can seem strange and weird. There are many myths surrounding their motion such as they are anti-gravity devices, but if we let go of a gyroscope whilst holding one it will of course obey the laws of gravity and fall to the floor.
In 1974 Eric Laithwaite was invited to give a Royal Institution lecture. In this he performed a series of demonstrations involving gyroscopes. He claimed that the outcome of these demonstrations showed that Newton's laws of motion are restricted to motion in straight lines where there is no rate of change of acceleration, and that circular motion has some force all of its own.
Gyroscopic motion does however follow Newton's laws of motion this is shown through the repetition of Laithwaite's demonstrations and explanation of the subsequent motion using Newtonian Mechanics.
MES Note: No, they don’t.
(On this website some formulas, diagrams and explanations taken from Cambridge Engineering 3C5 notes)
Acknowledgement: This page, and all those linked to it, were created by Emma Wilson in 2007 as part of her MEng Thesis at Cambridge University.
MES Note: I have looked online but could not find her thesis. Please let me know if you can find it!
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/gyroscopes/laithwaite.html
Retrieved: 18 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/WiPQl
Videos
Laithwaite (1921 - 1997)
Whilst Professor of Electrical Engineering at Imperial College, London, Laithwaite was invited to give a Royal Institution lecture. He chose to demonstrate his >observations on gyroscopic force, coming to a series of false conclusions on gyroscopic motion. As a result proceedings of the lecture were never published.
MES Note: What is wrong this arrogant and ignorant clown?!
The videos of the 1974 lecture can be viewed at http://www.gyroscopes.org/
Repetition of Laithwaite's Demonstrations
The demonstrations in Laithwaite's videos have each been repeated and the observed motion explained using Newtonian Mechanics. The repeated experiments and explanations of the motion can be found via the links below.
It is clear from these that contrary to Laithwaite's claims, circular motion does not have some force all of its own.
MES Note: You mean spiraling upwards movement!
…Repeated demonstrations with explanations
The numbering of the videos coincides with the numbering of videos of Laithwaite's original demonstration, seen at http://www.gyroscopes.org/
Videos 1-4: Precession of a Victorian gyroscope.
Video 5: A toy gyroscope precesses on ice.
Video 6: A Gyroscope precesses on a long arm
Video 7: A Gyroscope hangs off the top of a table
Video 8: Precession of a gyroscope on an arm with a double pivot point
Video 9: A gyroscope hangs from the ceiling on a long string
Video 10: A small boy lift a gyroscope, and precesses on a rotating platform as he does so
The two main arguments that Eric Laithwaite made, and are irrefutable, are that Gyroscopes precess with zero angular momentum and zero centripetal force. Emma Wilson ignores the first, likely because it is too difficult to spin, no pun intended. The second, she makes a complete mockery of science. The rest of her “explanations”, I don’t have the time nor will-power to go over such arrogantly “wrong conclusions” since they all depend on the first two arguments.
Recap of Eric Laithwaite’s Demonstration of a Gyroscope Precessing With Zero Centripetal Force
Eric Laithwaite demonstrated that a simple toy gyroscope had always defied mainstream physics, but if only we had the eyes to see.
Retrieved: 18 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Nzwg9
A 312 gram gyroscope precessing about a less than 1 gram pedestal is absolutely irrefutable proof that a gyroscope precesses with zero or near zero “centripetal force”; even without the ice.
3000 Pound Gyro-Car Precessing About a 10 Pound Ladder?
Just think about it for a second. Or maybe scale it up. Can you imagine a 3000 POUND CAR rotating about a 10 pound metal ladder?!
Obviously, this would cause extreme mayhem. But what if the car was spinning like a gyroscope?
It doesn’t take a Cambridge “Educated” Scientician to realize that a gyroscope is pure magic!
Emma Wilson’s Attempt to Debunk the Undebunkable: Gyroscopes Precess with Zero Centripetal Force
The following article by Emma Wilson may very well be the single most pathetic excuse for academic research that has ever been written.
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/gyroscopes/icegyro.html
Retrieved: 18 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Nl5B5
Video 5
Precession of a toy gyroscope on ice
In his video Laithwaite places a toy gyroscope on a tower on ice, it is intended that the ice will provide a frictionless surface. It can be seen that precession occurs as before with the gyroscope precessing around the tower. Laithwaite claims this shows that the gyroscope appears to exhibit no centrifugal force.
It can be seen that the tower has legs which dig into the ice meaning the assumption of a frictionless surface is not valid. Therefore Laithwaite's claim that the gyroscope appears to exhibit no centrifugal force is also invalid.
MES Note: She has a minor point that Eric’s experiment wasn’t truly “frictionless” but doesn’t change the fact that the tower is 1/300 times the weight of the gyro!
This experiment was repeated using an air table to provide a frictionless surface.
MES Note: A quality scientific air table is pretty expensive, but I will look to buy one in the near future when I get enough funds.
Gyroscopic precession on an air table
MES Note: Is this a sick joke? A 1-second video of a gyroscope setup that is nothing like Eric Laithwaite’s and with no accompanying context regarding spin speed, mass, non-spinning mass, etc. Even the center of mass/gravity is hard to pin-point. What is she trying to prove?
Unlike in Laithwaite's demonstration in this case the center of mass of the assembly is seen to remain above a fixed point whilst everything rotates around it. An animation of this demonstration along with animations of other demonstrations can be seen on the flash page.
Explanation of what is happening
The air table provides a flat frictionless surface, therefore there are can be no net lateral force acting upon the assembly.
It can be seen from the diagram that the only forces acting are vertical. Newton's first law tells us that a particle remains at rest so long as there is no unbalanced force acting upon it, when applied to a body this is true of the center of mass. Since the gyroscope and stand have no lateral force acting upon them there is no horizontal unbalanced force, this means that the center of mass of the system must stay above the fixed point that it started out at.
The videos show that the overall center of mass of the gyroscope and stand stay in one place whilst the rest of the assembly precesses around it.
This fake scientific garbage makes me sick to my stomach.
Emma Wilson’s Cartoon Fake Physics
Essentially, Emma is stating that on a frictionless surface, the center of mass will not move unless acted upon by a force.
Here are some of Emma’s cartoons illustrating this cartoonish concept.
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/gyroscopes/flash.html
Retrieved: 18 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/V6QQl
Emma purposely chose a gyro-setup that is nothing like Eric’s that makes a proper comparison not feasible.
This is a better illustration of the (non-existent) concept she is trying to demonstrate.
Why doesn’t Emma just replicate this exact experiment instead of making a bogus cartoon?!
Emma Wilson Doesn’t Address the Many Factors That Affect Precession
First of all, where is the center of mass of Emma’s gyroscope? Why is she placing the gyroscope so far away? And most importantly why is she posting a muted 1 second video with no context or explanation?
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/gyroscopes/video6.html
Retrieved: 19 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/gtvGY
Why doesn’t she just use a better gyro-setup that has the center of mass further out from the center?!
Some of the many factors that affect precession and gyroscopes overall, which Emma ignores, are listed below:
- Spin speed.
- Rotor spinning mass.
- Overall weight of the non-spinning mass such as the gyro casing, lever arm, and extended counterweight arm.
- Distance of the spinning mass vs the non-spinning mass to the fulcrum or center.
- Friction of the bearings, both for horizontal and vertical rotation.
- Counterweight counters precession and can make gyros appear heavier as demonstrated by my earlier counterweight gyro experiments.
The rotor is small relative to the overall gyro-setup so even if the rotating mass were to lose 100% of its “centrifugal force”, how would she even know? And how would we know she knows since she is literally just showing a bogus 1-second video that demonstrates nothing?
How can Emma get a degree for displaying such a mockery of physics?
My Ice Experiments Validate Eric Laithwaite and Debunk Emma Wilson
My earlier ice experiments already demonstrated gyroscopes precessing with zero centrifugal force, while even having the ability to rise magically upwards!
Interestingly enough, as the gyro loses spin speed it behaves much like her cartoon physics as the center of mass is now moved back near the center of the gyro-wheel.
So yes, even cartoon physics are valid when proper context is given.
Shout Out to “woopyjump” and “jogglevision” YouTube Channels for Also Seeing Through Bogus Cambridge Fake Science!
Many inventors and free thinkers have seen the obvious anti-centrifugal ability of gyroscopes, and a couple of these great people even called out the fake physics of Emma Wilson!
Retrieved: 21 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/ntN2Z
woopyjump’s experiment involved a precessing gyroscope on a free to rotate (in one direction) platform.
“jogglevision” also debunks Emma’s debunking of the undebunkable.
Retrieved: 21 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/gCnP7
jogglevision’s experiment involves hanging a gyroscope via a string to see it precess about the non-center of mass.
This is essentially the same as the famous “precessing tire on a string” experiment.
Famous Precessing Bicycle Wheel Experiment Has Always Demonstrated Zero Centripetal/Centrifugal Force
Everyone has seen a bicycle wheel directly defy gravity (you just have to remove the “angular momentum” blindfolds) when hanging by a string, but few have ever noticed that it is also not exhibiting any “centrifugal” or “centripetal” force!
Even the world famous Walter Lewin, throughout his entire lecture, does not see the blatant anti-centripetal/anti-centrifugal force magic being displayed by gyroscopes.
Retrieved: 21 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/tueq8
Note the very little horizontal movement of the rope support as the bicycle wheel magically precesses. Reversing the spin direction reverses the precession direction.
Note that as Walter adds an extra weight to the bicycle wheel it precesses faster. But with a keen eye, you can notice the rope support moves horizontally outwards in precession since the non-spinning mass has what the spinning wheel doesn’t: “angular momentum”. Neither Walter nor the “torque” equations accounts, or even notice it.
Furthermore, simply stating “spin angular momentum” does not account for how a rolling wheel automatically adjusts any imbalance thus constantly rising or precessing upwards, much like my gyro rising experiments.
Similarly, this mystical and soon to be revealed non-existent illusion known as “spin angular momentum” does not and never did explain how spinning tops magically auto-balance and the universally ignored ability of rising upwards against gravity.
But even without the “elaborate” hanging gyroscope demonstration (or my ice experiments or even Eric’s toy pedestal experiment), just a gyroscope precessing around your finger instead of throwing itself outwards is enough proof that “centripetal force” is modifiable.
Gyroscopes Precess with Zero “Angular Momentum”
Conveniently, the other irrefutable bombshell finding of Eric Laithwaite, that gyroscopes precess with zero angular momentum as if they were massless, is nowhere to be found in Emma Wilson’s coverup writings.
Lack of centrifugal force and lack of angular momentum go hand-in-hand as both suggest “mass” is disappearing somewhere “else”. #Counterspace
Retrieved: 17 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Ezhwv
Gyroscopes in precession literally behave massless! #Magic
Let’s use the same car example to illustrate the implications of this means:
Anyone can be stronger than a moving a car, but only if it were precessing.
THE DISCOVERY THAT PUT MY ENTIRE LIFE ON HOLD
TOP SECRET: Spinning Tops Prove We Live in a Dream #Inception
Ever wonder why the Blockbuster Movie "Inception" uses their flag ship Spinning Top to represent the link between the real world from the dream world?
http://www.pinsdaddy.com/inception-dvd-cover_k5jbuW0M4ezX5OA4xNLTU5RAsNENTeA7djT4D61*648/
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/VBAu0
In the movie, the main character played by Hollywood megastar Leonardo DiCaprio uses his "Totem", which "dreamers" use to distinguish dreams from reality, as a Spinning Top. If the spinning top keeps spinning, he is in a dream. If it stops spinning, then he is in reality.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/totem
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/w9oTY
totem
(1) Any natural object or living creature that serves as an emblem of a tribe, clan or family.
(2) The representation of such object or creature.
(3) The clan whose kinship is defined in reference to such an object or creature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception
Retrieved: 9 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/1xBKk
Inception
Inception is a 2010 science fiction action film[3] written, co-produced, and directed by Christopher Nolan, and co-produced by Emma Thomas. The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio as a professional thief who steals information by infiltrating the subconscious, and is offered a chance to have his criminal history erased as payment for the implantation of another person's idea into a target's subconscious.[4]
…
When Mal refused to return to reality, Cobb used a rudimentary form of inception by reactivating her totem (an object dreamers use to distinguish dreams from reality) and reminding her subconscious that their world was not real.
…
Using his totem—a spinning top that spins indefinitely in a dream world but falls over in reality—Cobb conducts a test to prove that he is indeed in the real world, but he ignores its result and instead joins his children in the garden.
…
Cast
Leonardo DiCaprio as Dom Cobb, a professional thief who specializes in conning secrets from his victims by infiltrating their dreams. DiCaprio was the first actor to be cast in the film.[13]
Why was a Spinning Top Chosen for the Inception Movie?
Now before I explain why I think the spinning top was selected, here is the process I took that led me from trying to figure out how a spinning top stays spinning upright and then later finding myself staring right at the dream that we call reality…
Why Doesn't a Spinning Top Fall?
As usual, it is always best to go over the mainstream Wikipedia “explanation” to see what the conventional view of any topic is first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top
Retrieved: 17 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/1pvZ5
Top
A spinning top is a toy designed to spin rapidly on the ground, the motion of which causes it to remain precisely balanced on its tip because of its rotational inertia.
An assortment of spinning tops
…
The action of a top is described by equations of rigid body dynamics (see the section Rotation in three dimensions). Typically the top will at first wobble until the shape of the tip and its interaction with the surface force it upright; contrary to what is sometimes assumed, longstanding scientific studies (and easy experimentations reproducible by anyone) show that less friction increases the time before the upright position is reached (unless the top is so unbalanced that it falls before reaching it).[4] After spinning upright (in the so-called "sleep" position) for an extended period, the angular momentum will gradually lessen (mainly due to friction), leading to ever increasing precession, finally causing the top to topple in a frequently violent last thrash. In the "sleep" period, and only in it, provided it is ever reached, less friction means longer "sleep" time (whence the common error that less friction implies longer global spinning time).
In other words, the spinning tops rises against “gravity”. Also, less friction does not necessarily increase time to rise! It actually depends on rotational friction, precession speed, and even overall spinning mass vs non-spinning mass; as my earlier gyroscope experiments demonstrated. In later experiments, I will show that lowering spin speed, as well as adding weight to the gyro or spinning top, can make it rise faster.
Also, what in the world does “interaction with the surface force it upright” mean?! The most important aspect of spinning tops is completely swept under the rug in this bogus embarrassment of a Wikipedia article.
LITERALLY EVERY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE ARTICLE EVER WRITTEN IGNORES, DOWNPLAYS, OR DOESN’T EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT SPINNING TOPS AND PRECESSING GYROSCOPES RISE UPWARDS
Compare this animation of a precessing gyroscope from the above Wikipedia article, with my previously shown experiment of a gyroscope magically rising upwards on low friction or rotational surfaces.
A precessing gyroscope
GIF Url:
This is “unless the top is so unbalanced that it falls before reaching it” MAGICALLY RISES!
Please, if you are as fascinated as I am about this gyro magic, please send some Edits to the Wikipedia article with a link to my experiments! =D
“Rotational Inertia", or Inertia in General, is the Least Understood and Most Misunderstood Topic in Physics
A top supposedly “stays upright due to its rotational inertia”, which is the resistance to rotation, or put is more simply:
“A spinning top stays upright because it stays upright”.
This is not an explanation!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Rotational_inertia
Retrieved: 17 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/zNzTS
Inertia
Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion. This includes changes to the object's speed, direction, or state of rest.
An aspect of this property is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant speed, when no forces are upon them — and this aspect in particular is also called inertia.
The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles in classical physics that are still used today to describe the motion of objects and how they are affected by the applied forces on them.
Inertia comes from the Latin word, iners, meaning idle, sluggish. Inertia is one of the primary manifestations of mass, which is a quantitative property of physical systems. Isaac Newton defined inertia as his first law in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states: [1]
The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.
…
The term "inertia" was first introduced by Johannes Kepler in his Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae[22] (published in three parts from 1617–1621); however, the meaning of Kepler's term (which he derived from the Latin word for "idleness" or "laziness") was not quite the same as its modern interpretation. Kepler defined inertia only in terms of a resistance to movement, once again based on the presumption that rest was a natural state which did not need explanation. It was not until the later work of Galileo and Newton unified rest and motion in one principle that the term "inertia" could be applied to these concepts as it is today.[citation needed]
Nevertheless, despite defining the concept so elegantly in his laws of motion, even Newton did not actually use the term "inertia" to refer to his First Law. In fact, Newton originally viewed the phenomenon he described in his First Law of Motion as being caused by "innate forces" inherent in matter, which resisted any acceleration. Given this perspective, and borrowing from Kepler, Newton attributed the term "inertia" to mean "the innate force possessed by an object which resists changes in motion"; thus, Newton defined "inertia" to mean the cause of the phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself. However, Newton's original ideas of "innate resistive force" were ultimately problematic for a variety of reasons, and thus most physicists no longer think in these terms. As no alternate mechanism has been readily accepted, and it is now generally accepted that there may not be one which we can know, the term "inertia" has come to mean simply the phenomenon itself, rather than any inherent mechanism. Thus, ultimately, "inertia" in modern classical physics has come to be a name for the same phenomenon described by Newton's First Law of Motion, and the two concepts are now considered to be equivalent.
MES Note: This is essentially all of mainstream physics in regard to all phenomena, especially inertia, gravity, and electromagnetism: Equating the perceived results with the defining mechanism itself.
…
Relativity
Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, as proposed in his 1905 paper entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was built on the understanding of inertia and inertial reference frames developed by Galileo and Newton. While this revolutionary theory did significantly change the meaning of many Newtonian concepts such as mass, energy, and distance, Einstein's concept of inertia remained unchanged from Newton's original meaning (in fact, the entire theory was based on Newton's definition of inertia). However, this resulted in a limitation inherent in special relativity: the principle of relativity could only apply to reference frames that were inertial in nature (meaning when no acceleration was present). In an attempt to address this limitation, Einstein proceeded to develop his general theory of relativity ("The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity," 1916), which ultimately provided a unified theory for both inertial and noninertial (accelerated) reference frames. However, in order to accomplish this, in general relativity, Einstein found it necessary to redefine several fundamental concepts (such as gravity) in terms of a new concept of "curvature" of space-time, instead of the more traditional system of forces understood by Newton.[23]
As a result of this redefinition, Einstein also redefined the concept of "inertia" in terms of geodesic deviation instead, with some subtle but significant additional implications. The result of this is that, according to general relativity, inertia is the gravitational coupling between matter and spacetime.
MES Note: The mystery of “inertia”, how it is defined, and how its frame of reference is defined underpins all of mainstream Newtonian mechanics, Einsteinian Relativity, space dynamics, and quantum mechanics!
…
Rotational inertia
Another form of inertia is rotational inertia (→ moment of inertia), the property that a rotating rigid body maintains its state of uniform rotational motion. Its angular momentum is unchanged, unless an external torque is applied; this is also called conservation of angular momentum. Rotational inertia depends on the object remaining structurally intact as a rigid body, and also has practical consequences. For example, a gyroscope uses the property that it resists any change in the axis of rotation.
Essentially, the mainstream narrative for “inertia” goes like this: objects in linear or rotational motion want to maintain their motion and orientation unless acted upon by an external force or torque. Thus, a spinning top wants to maintain the orientation it is spinning at, even in opposition to gravity. This is the same as my earlier quote:
*“A spinning top stays upright because it stays upright”. *
Bruce Yeany’s Brilliant Illustrations of Mainstream Angular Momentum and Spinning Forces
One of the best (mainstream) science teachers is Bruce Yeany and his YouTube Channel! He explains the phenomenon of rotational inertia very clearly by using a Spinning Tray.
MES Note: Linear Momentum is the numerical “amount of inertia” and is defined as the mass multiplied by velocity.
Retrieved: 12 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/CQGbj
Being held in place, the water levels out, and if let go the whole bottle and platform setup would just fall down.
But when pushed forward, the bottle exerts a force on the liquid thus pushing against it and the liquid gets squished on the bottom of the bottle. This is essentially the same as “centripetal force” but this force is always in a circular direction as the bottle is in rotation.
MES Note: As with “centripetal force”, “gravity pulling downwards” is an assumption… or at least not always the case.
Thus, letting go of the string would cause the object to fly in tangent to the circle, as a hammer thrower tosses a heavy stone by releasing chain.
Centripetal Real Force vs. Centrifugal Fictional Force Comparison
Bruce’s other video explains the principle of the “Centrifugal Force”, which is the “apparent” outwards force on objects in rotation. Objects “appear” to be extending outwards but in “reality”, it is just the velocity of the object being constantly pushed inwards by the Centripetal Force. “Centripetal” vs. “Centrifugal” just depends on the “Frame of Reference”, i.e. fixed frame vs. moving with a rotating object frame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame
Retrieved: 24 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/epvhC
Non-inertial reference frame
A non-inertial reference frame is a frame of reference that is undergoing acceleration with respect to an inertial frame.[1] An accelerometer at rest in a non-inertial frame will in general detect a non-zero acceleration. In a curved spacetime all frames are non-inertial[clarification needed]. The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration.[2][3] To explain the motion of bodies entirely within the viewpoint of non-inertial reference frames, fictitious forces (also called inertial forces, pseudo-forces[4]and d'Alembert forces) must be introduced to account for the observed motion, such as the Coriolis force or the centrifugal force, as derived from the acceleration of the non-inertial frame.[5] As stated by Goodman and Warner, "One might say that F = ma holds in any coordinate system provided the term 'force' is redefined to include the so-called 'reversed effective forces' or 'inertia forces'."[6]
MES Note: “Laws” varying?!
Inertial reference frames have zero acceleration; i.e. at rest or at constant velocity.
Non-inertial reference frames are accelerating; i.e. such as rotating on a Merry-Go-Round.
Retrieved: 17 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Xn4Vu
…
Let us now take a mental ride on a merry-go-round—specifically, a rapidly rotating playground merry-go-round. You take the merry-go-round to be your frame of reference because you rotate together. In that non-inertial frame, you feel a fictitious force, named centrifugal force (not to be confused with centripetal force), trying to throw you off. You must hang on tightly to counteract the centrifugal force. In Earth’s frame of reference, there is no force trying to throw you off. Rather you must hang on to make yourself go in a circle because otherwise you would go in a straight line, right off the merry-go-round.
Figure 2
In Figure 2a A rider on a merry-go-round feels as if he is being thrown off. This fictitious force is called the centrifugal force—it explains the rider’s motion in the rotating frame of reference. (b) In an inertial frame of reference and according to Newton’s laws, it is his inertia that carries him off and not a real force (the unshaded rider has Fnet=0 and heads in a straight line). A real force, Fcentripetal, is needed to cause a circular path.
Thus, in this example, in the viewpoint of the rider, the rider will appear to be accelerating outwards instead of forward. This “viewpoint” is a rotating non-inertial frame of reference and the acceleration outwards is the centrifugal force.
When viewing the merry-go-round from a person standing outside, the merry-go-round appears to be going around, thus accelerating inwards. This view is a stationary inertial reference frame and the inwards acceleration is the centripetal force acting upon the inertia or linear momentum of the rider/ride.
A great example of this “fake” centrifugal force is a car steering on a hard turn and experiencing being pushed to the outside.
Here is the same illustration but with liquids of varying mass; the red liquid is mineral oil, the blue is water, and the clear color is syrup.
Retrieved: 12 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/3s8Fa
Spinning objects can causes separation of material types based on their density, such as in this simple centrifuge: the denser liquid is pushed outwards when it is spinning, but when it is stopped spinning, the denser liquid moves downwards.
Fascinating Stuff!
The Amazing SpillNot
A product that demonstrates this rotational magic is the “SpillNot” and you can purchase one here if you are in the USA:
https://www.teachersource.com/product/the-spill-not/energy-motion
Retrieved: 12 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Z9waW
The following video demonstrates that adding a horizontal accelerometer shows extremely little horizontal acceleration, again showing that the acceleration is mainly perpendicular to the base.
Retrieved: 12 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/IHcQA
Amazing stuff!
“Angular Momentum” is the Rotational Equivalent of Linear Momentum
The mainstream view of “angular momentum” is essentially the rotational equivalent of linear momentum and is a term to describe the overall behavior of a rotating object being accelerated inwards. This is essentially how I view mainstream angular momentum, but it is not “quite” as there is more mainstream pseudo-science behind this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
Retrieved: 24 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/UHiQ7
Angular momentum
In physics, angular momentum (rarely, moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. It is an important quantity in physics because it is a conserved quantity—the total angular momentum of a closed system remains constant.
This gyroscope remains upright while spinning due to the conservation of its angular momentum.
…
Just like for angular velocity, there are two special types of angular momentum: the spin angular momentum and the orbital angular momentum.
Note that the orbital angular momentum is just precession, unless of course a different coordinate system is used.
NO MENTION ON WIKIPEDIA THAT GYROSCOPES MAGICALLY RISE UPWARDS!
Instead of describing the most important property of gyroscopes, which is the ability magically to rise upwards (or downwards), Wikipedia defines angular momentum as a “pseudovector” that is “additive” in a “pseudovector sum”.
So much “pseudo” science so little time.
At least the writers of Wikipedia are being honest, “angular momentum” is pseudoscience.
Brief Overview of Newton’s Laws of Motion and Einstein’s Theories of Relativity
To get a better understanding of mainstream physics, here is the mainstream Wikipedia narrative for both classical and modern physics. Classical physics is based on Newton’s laws of motion, while modern physics is based on Einstein’s theory of relativity. But both are dependent on how “inertia”, and thus “mass”, is defined.
Newton’s 3 Laws of Motion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Retrieve: 23 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/cFXHN
Newton’s laws of motion
Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that, together, laid the foundation for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between a body and the forces acting upon it, and its motion in response to those forces. More precisely, the first law defines the force qualitatively, the second law offers a quantitative measure of the force, and the third asserts that a single isolated force doesn't exist. These three laws have been expressed in several ways, over nearly three centuries,[i] and can be summarised as follows:
- First law: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3]
- Second law: In an inertial frame of reference, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma. (It is assumed here that the mass m is constant – see below.)
- Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
The three laws of motion were first compiled by Isaac Newton in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), first published in 1687.[4] Newton used them to explain and investigate the motion of many physical objects and systems.[5] For example, in the third volume of the text, Newton showed that these laws of motion, combined with his law of universal gravitation, explained Kepler's laws of planetary motion.
A fourth law is often also described in the bibliography, which states that forces add up like vectors, that is, that forces obey the principle of superposition.[6][7][8]
…
History
Newton's 1st Law
From the original Latin of Newton's Principia:
- Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
Translated to English, this reads:
- Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.[28]
…
Newton's 2nd Law
Newton's original Latin reads:
Lex II: Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.
This was translated quite closely in Motte's 1729 translation as:Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impress'd; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impress'd.
According to modern ideas of how Newton was using his terminology,[32] this is understood, in modern terms, as an equivalent of:The change of momentum of a body is proportional to the impulse impressed on the body, and happens along the straight line on which that impulse is impressed.
…
Newton's 3rd Law
- Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.
Translated to English, this reads:- Law III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
Very interesting comparison between the modern interpretation of Newton’s Laws vs his original writings!
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
Another one of Newton’s many “laws” is his law of “gravity”, which is theorized as being the universal pull of all objects towards all other objects throughout the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
Retrieved: 23 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/jkkxh
Newton's law of universal gravitation
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.[note 1] This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning.[1] It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687. When Newton presented Book 1 of the unpublished text in April 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him.
In today's language, the law states that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force acting along the line intersecting the two points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[2]
The equation for universal gravitation thus takes the form:
where F is the gravitational force acting between two objects, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, r is the distance between the centers of their masses, and G is the gravitational constant.
The first test of Newton's theory of gravitation between masses in the laboratory was the Cavendish experiment conducted by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1798.[3] It took place 111 years after the publication of Newton's Principia and approximately 71 years after his death.
Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of the electrical force arising between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, where force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.
MES Note: It is not a coincidence that Newton’s gravitational force resembles Coulomb’s electrical force.
Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme accuracy, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun).
…
…
G is the gravitational constant (6.674×10−11 N·(m/kg)2);
Coulomb’s Law of Electric Force
It is very interesting, and definitely no mere coincidence, that the formula for (mainstream) gravitation is very similar to that for the “force” between two “electrically charged particles”. Note that “electric charge” is the sum of the discreet charge of subatomic particles, hence the number of these so called particles creates attractive or repulsive force similar to the mass of an object creates attractive force between other masses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Retrieved: 14 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/6OvwK
Coulomb’s law
Coulomb's law, or Coulomb's inverse-square law, is an experimental law[1] of physics that quantifies the amount of force between two stationary, electrically charged particles. The electric force between charged bodies at rest is conventionally called electrostatic force[2] or Coulomb force.[3] The quantity of electrostatic force between stationary charges is always described by Coulomb’s law.[4] The law was first published in 1785 by French physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism, maybe even its starting point,[5] because it was now possible to discuss quantity of electric charge in a meaningful way.[6]
In its scalar form, the law is:
where ke is Coulomb's constant (ke ≈ 9×109 N⋅m2⋅C-2),[7] q1 and q2 are the signed magnitudes of the charges, and the scalar r is the distance between the charges. The force of the interaction between the charges is attractive if the charges have opposite signs (i.e., F is negative) and repulsive if like-signed (i.e., F is positive).
Being an inverse-square law, the law is analogous to Isaac Newton's inverse-square law of universal gravitation, but gravitational forces are always attractive, while electrostatic forces can be attractive or repulsive.[8]
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
Retrieved: 23 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/1zh8z
Theory of relativity
The theory of relativity usually encompasses two interrelated theories by Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity.[1] Special relativity applies to elementary particles and their interactions, describing all their physical phenomena except gravity. General relativity explains the law of gravitation and its relation to other forces of nature.[2] It applies to the cosmological and astrophysical realm, including astronomy.[3]
The theory transformed theoretical physics and astronomy during the 20th century, superseding a 200-year-old theory of mechanics created primarily by Isaac Newton.[3][4][5] It introduced concepts including spacetime as a unified entity of space and time, relativity of simultaneity, kinematic and gravitational time dilation, and length contraction. In the field of physics, relativity improved the science of elementary particles and their fundamental interactions, along with ushering in the nuclear age. With relativity, cosmology and astrophysics predicted extraordinary astronomical phenomena such as neutron stars, black holes, and gravitational waves.[3][4][5]
Special Relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Retrieved: 23 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Sd3LX
Special relativity
In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. In Albert Einstein's original pedagogical treatment, it is based on two postulates:
(1) The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference).
(2) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.It was originally proposed by Albert Einstein in a paper published 26 September 1905 titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[p 1] The inconsistency of Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism and the lack of experimental confirmation for a hypothesized luminiferous aether led to the development of special relativity, which corrects mechanics to handle situations involving motions at a significant fraction of the speed of light (known as relativistic velocities). As of today, special relativity is the most accurate model of motion at any speed when gravitational effects are negligible. Even so, the Newtonian mechanics model is still useful as an approximation at small velocities relative to the speed of light, due to its simplicity and high accuracy within its scope.
The world line: a diagrammatic representation of spacetime
MES Note: The true aether is not “luminiferous” or “light bearing” but is light, is inertia, and is all things. Also, very interesting representation of “space/time”, which resembles the saying “as above so below”, David LaPoint’s primer fields, and Ken Wheeler’s true magnetism.
Mainstream “Luminiferous” Aether vs MES True Aether
The “luminiferous” or “light bearing” aether was originally viewed as the medium by which light or electromagnetism radiates in a vacuum, but later left out in favor of “relativity” because the “mathematics” didn’t require it. Note that this is not the concept of “aether” that I subscribe to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Retrieved: 21 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/4ByE4
Luminiferous aether
Luminiferous aether or ether[1][2] ("luminiferous", meaning "light-bearing"), was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[3] It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do.
…
A major breakthrough was the theory of relativity, which could explain why the experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it was not needed.
…
Lorentz and FitzGerald offered within the framework of Lorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, the new special theory of relativity (1905) could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. Aether fell to Occam's Razor.[B 1][B 2][B 3][B 4]
The luminiferous aether: it was hypothesised that the Earth moves through a "medium" of aether that carries light
This is a very bizarre view of the aether. But if you look closely, Earth or aEthr or aether, has been pointing to the true Aether this entire time…
The aether is not a separate “field” that light or particles travels upon, but rather, it is all things just as water can exist as a solid, liquid, and gas.
Aether is all that exists. Everything else is but a ripple in the aether.
General Relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Retrieved: 23 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/vIIoG
General relativity
General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.
Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity in relation to classical physics have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data. However, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.
Einstein's theory has important astrophysical implications. For example, it implies the existence of black holes—regions of space in which space and time are distorted in such a way that nothing, not even light, can escape—as an end-state for massive stars. There is ample evidence that the intense radiation emitted by certain kinds of astronomical objects is due to black holes; for example, microquasars and active galactic nuclei result from the presence of stellar black holes and supermassive black holes, respectively. The bending of light by gravity can lead to the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, in which multiple images of the same distant astronomical object are visible in the sky. General relativity also predicts the existence of gravitational waves, which have since been observed directly by the physics collaboration LIGO. In addition, general relativity is the basis of current cosmological models of a consistently expanding universe.
Widely acknowledged as a theory of extraordinary beauty, general relativity has often been described as the most beautiful of all existing physical theories.
Spacetime curvature schematic
…
According to general relativity, objects in a gravitational field behave similarly to objects within an accelerating enclosure. For example, an observer will see a ball fall the same way in a rocket (left) as it does on Earth (right), provided that the acceleration of the rocket is equal to 9.8 m/s2 (the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth).
Essentially General relativity unifies Newton’s law of universal gravitation with that of Special relativity; and does so by assuming a “space/time curvature” nature of the universe. But it doesn’t account for “quantum” or sub-atomic physics.
Equivalence Principle
In the above diagram, a very interesting thought experiment regarding the “equivalence” of gravity vs simple acceleration of an enclosure on the behavior of a falling ball. This is in fact a simple illustration of what follows from GR and is called the Equivalence Principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Retrieved: 27 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/tkNRu
Equivalence principle
In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
This is a very interesting theory that states “gravity” or the pull of objects towards each other, is equivalent in its observed effects as with simple acceleration. Thus “gravity” and “inertia” are interlinked.
Equivalence Principle and Electromagnetism Paradox
The first question that came to my mind when I learned of the equivalence principle was: what about accelerating electromagnetic fields?
Apparently, this is just another paradox in mainstream scientific (overly convoluted) theory…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_charged_particles_in_a_gravitational_field
Retrieved: 27 Mach 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/5oLZS
Paradox of radiation of charged particles in a gravitational field
The paradox of a charge in a gravitational field is an apparent physical paradox in the context of general relativity. A charged particle at rest in a gravitational field, such as on the surface of the Earth, must be supported by a force to prevent it from falling. According to the equivalence principle, it should be indistinguishable from a particle in flat space being accelerated by a force. Maxwell's equations say that an accelerated charge should radiate electromagnetic waves, yet such radiation is not observed for stationary particles in gravitational fields.
MES Note: Very interesting! “Charged particles” radiate “electromagnetic waves” when accelerated but not when “stationary” in gravitational fields.
One of the first to study this problem was Max Born in his 1909 paper about the consequences of a charge in uniformly accelerated frame.[1] Earlier concerns and possible solutions were raised by Wolfgang Pauli (1918),[2] Max von Laue (1919),[3] and others, but the most recognized work on the subject is the resolution of Thomas Fulton and Fritz Rohrlich in 1960.[4][5]
…
Resolution by Rohrlich
See also: Rindler coordinatesThe resolution of this paradox, like the twin paradox and ladder paradox, comes through appropriate care in distinguishing frames of reference. This section follows the analysis of Fritz Rohrlich (1965),[6] who shows that a charged particle and a neutral particle fall equally fast in a gravitational field. Likewise, a charged particle at rest in a gravitational field does not radiate in its rest frame, but it does so in the frame of a free falling observer.[7][8] The equivalence principle is preserved for charged particles.
The key is to realize that the laws of electrodynamics, Maxwell's equations, hold only within an inertial frame, that is, in a frame in which all forces act locally, and there is no net acceleration when the net local forces are zero.[note 1] The frame could be free fall under gravity, or far in space away from any forces. The surface of the Earth is not an inertial frame, as it is being constantly accelerated. We know that the surface of the Earth is not an inertial frame because an object at rest there may not remain at rest—objects at rest fall to the ground when released. Gravity is a non-local fictitious “force” within the Earth’s surface frame, just like centrifugal “force”. So we cannot naively formulate expectations based on Maxwell's equations in this frame.
…
Additional concerns
The radiation from the supported charge viewed in the freefalling frame (or vice versa) is something of a curiosity: where does it go? Boulware (1980)[11] finds that the radiation goes into a region of spacetime inaccessible to the co-accelerating, supported observer.
Seems like typical mainstream science of imposing theory and “reference frames” to physical phenomena, while even the very phenomena they are attempting to theorize about are not well defined or verified.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2963/958637b374307b495b94b96d7afe1b0e1372.pdf
Retrieved: 27 March 2019
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190327190142/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2963/958637b374307b495b94b96d7afe1b0e1372.pdf
“Distinguished” authors reaching opposite conclusions regarding “radiation of accelerated particles”, and with “radiation” magically going into a region of “inaccessible” space time…
The only thing inaccessible is mainstream physics.
The obvious questions that arises are:
- What is a “charge”?
- What is a “particle”?
- What is a “field”?
- What is “electromagnetism”?
- What is “electricity”?
- What is “magnetism”
- What is “acceleration”?
- What is “inertia”?
- If theories “don’t hold” when the frame of reference changes, are these theories then incomplete and/or wrong?
- What is “reality”?
- Why do tax-funded “scientific” journals lock up their research behind pay walls?
- The most important of all: How does a spinning top rise?
Mainstream Attempt to Unify Relativity with Quantum Mechanics
The mainstream physics narrative is essentially a quest to link all mainstream physics together from the planetary scale down to the subatomic in a theory known as the “Theory of Everything”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
Retrieved: 23 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/qTWXd
Theory of everything
A theory of everything (TOE[1] or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[2]:6 Finding a TOE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a TOE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT). GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large scale and high mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. QFT successfully implemented the Standard Model and unified the interactions (so-called Grand Unified Theory) between the three non-gravitational forces: strong, weak, and electromagnetic force.[3]:122
MES Note: Recall from #FreeEnergy Part 2 that the strong force is what holds most matter together into particles like protons or neutrons; the weak force is responsible for radioactive decay of atoms; the electromagnetic force is the force between electrically charged particles. The Strong force is about 137 times as strong as electromagnetism, a million times as strong as the Weak force, and 1038 times as strong as gravitation. Mainstream physics aside, I’m of the view these forces are all manifestation of the same force. #TheForce
Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In accordance with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QFT, as they are currently formulated, are mutually incompatible – they cannot both be right.
Simulated Large Hadron Collider CMS particle detector data depicting a Higgs boson produced by colliding protons decaying into hadron jets and electrons
MES Note: The above simulation also looks very similar to the earlier “spacetime” diagram, “as above so below”, David LaPoint’s primer fields, and especially Ken Wheeler’s magnetism; and even gyroscopes ability of rising upwards downwards.
Mainstream Wikipedia Physics Was Lacking So I Looked for Alternative Explanations
Putting aside the mainstream physics of seemingly complex topics such as the interactions of stars, planets, and galaxies with that of subatomic neutrons, protons, and bosons, let’s dig further into the “simple” and entirely unanswered physics of spinning tops.
https://www.quora.com/Mechanics-physics-Why-doesnt-a-spinning-top-fall
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/18waq
The question should be:
WHY DOES EVERY ILLUSTRATION OF A SPINNING TOP OR PRECESSING GYROSCOPE IGNORE THE FACT THAT IT SPIRALS UPWARDS?!
Seriously, has the world gone mad?!
Scrolling through the unthinking repetition of mainstream “conservation of angular momentum”, "torque", etc., I then came across Owen Liang…
Owen Liang, posting in 2013 through his Axis Laing Quora account and then later in 2016 and 2017 using his multiple Owen Laing accounts, may literally have uncovered one of the most monumental findings in all of physics!
The Mysterious and Brilliant Owen Liang
Let’s first try to understand one of the world's most unique minds…
MES Note: I go over a pretty intense review of Owen Liang because, as monumental as his finding, his bizarre character is a worthy study on its own. In fact, much of my world view has now been shaped by this obscure person. And as such, I believe it is a mandatory quest for all to undertake in order to better understand how we too can uncover such blatantly simple yet reality defying findings.
Here are his many (and unnecessary) Quora accounts.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Axis-Liang
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/HA5oi
Interesting…
https://www.quora.com/profile/Owen-Liang-6
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/sZPeA
Even more interesting….
https://www.quora.com/profile/Owen-Liang-8
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/Dgb4N
He graduated in 1988 in Molecular Biology at the University of California, Berkeley.
A Molecular Biologist is doing the work that physicists should've been doing hundreds of years ago.
I am literally have no idea why he keeps creating new accounts…. #TheMindOfAGenius
Owen Liang Held the Top Secret Spinning Top Secret Since At Least 2008
Owen Liang, the hero the world deserved.
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/dlywk
That post was from 2013 but his video is from 2008!
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/pRuEE
Can you see what is happening here??!! The spinning top on the left is literally balancing parallel to the surface!
Fast forward to Owen’s More Recent Videos and Websites
Owen Liang elaborated on his top secret finding in later websites.
https://sites.google.com/site/spacespinningtop/
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/iZ4rM
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/iZ4rM
In other words, "tricking" the spinning top by using a magnet to overcome gravity as the predominate "attractive" force causes the spinning top to always stay parallel to the magnet, even when rotated literally upside down! The top easily overcomes (mainstream pseudo-science) "angular momentum". #Magic
MES Note: I am literally his first subscriber on this particular YouTube channel but also of some of his many other channels. #Fate
Also note how he states that he showed his invention to "physics professors in top universities" and none of them can explain this.
Adding a second attractive magnet causes the spinning top to move away and magically balance tilted.
"Angular Momentum" is no match for a spinning top upside down!
Yup! Owen is very right about his Gyro Space Top. You can't have two "Laws" for essentially the same thing: A Spinning Top.
The Spinning Top magically knows to tilt to be perpendicular to the vector sum total of the attraction force.
Retrieved: 1 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/MxQ7i
Owen Liang’s 4 Category of Spinning Tops
Owen Liang has identified 4 different types of spinning tops, and they are listed below.
Category 1: Gravity Spinning Top
This is the basic spinning top that tends to spiral upwards always against the direction of gravity.
Viewing this type of spinning top alone gives the illusion of “angular momentum” or “rotational inertia” in that the spinning top remains spinning upright even if the base is tilted.
Retrieved: 4 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/6eEGo?t=3m4s
Category 2: Inverting Spinning Top
The inverted spinning top is the original Gyro Space Top and uses an evenly distributed magnetic field to overcome gravity as the predominate force acting upon the spinning top. The top spirals always upright in the opposite direction of the attractive magnetic field.
Category 3: Asymmetrical Spinning Top
The asymmetrical spinning top is the Gyro Space Top or inverted top but with an additional attractive magnet added to create an asymmetric magnetic attractive force. The spinning top magically knows to spiral upwards and align against the direction of the vector sum of the asymmetric attractive magnetic field.
Category 4: Hybrid Spinning Tip
The hybrid spinning top involves orientating the Gyro Space Top and extending it to a distance where both gravity and magnetism play significant roles. The spinning top tends to spiral upwards against the vector sum of both gravity and magnetism.
Unbelievable! Notice how the spinning top starts to tilt upwards AGAINST GRAVITY as Owen Liang extends the top further from the magnetic base, and again in line with his "Vector Addition" formulation.
The spinning top literally looks like a UFO wanting to take off! #Amazing
MES Category 5: Hybrid Asymmetrical Spinning Top
This category is one that Owen Liang didn’t label but it is a combination of an asymmetrical magnet placement with influence from gravity. The hybrid asymmetrical spinning top tends to spiral upwards against the vector sum of gravity and the asymmetric attractive magnetic field.
Even if the attractive asymmetric magnetic field is placed above the spinning top, the top knows to align against this magnetic field that otherwise should want it to move towards it if the top was not spinning.
Gyro Space Top Can Jump Back and Forth from Different Categories
Simply modifying the distance between the spinning top and the magnet can change it from a gravity top to a magnetic gyro space top!
Retrieved: 7 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/mAXyD
Auto-balancing at its finest!
Owen Liang’s “Globe Top” Alludes to the Secret Behind UFO Technology
This may very well be the basis behind UFO and flying saucer technology; which are a fact of life.
Retrieved: 16 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/T7s3E
Owen Liang’s Amazon Gryo Space Top Product Listing is No Longer Available!
I have ordered his Gyro Top last year but did not receive it, and now his product page is shown as “Currently unavailable”! Guess I have to make my own.
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/Q1Sk1
MES Note: This screenshot was when I ordered it, but then Amazon refunded my order after several months of waiting. Owen Liang get your act together!
Updated Screenshot
Retrieved: 25 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/dtpem
Great Insights from Owen’s Product Listing
Owen Liang has some very insightful illustrations regarding his game-changing discovery and especially as to how spinning tops have remained (publicly) a misinterpreted mystery for so long.
MES Note: Where are the Nobel Prize Winners indeed?! But then again, war criminals such as Barack Obama also has a Nobel “Peace” Prize; so better not to get associated with that tainted “award”.
Children should be brought up understanding real physics before fake physics grabs hold of their mind!
Rotation and magnetism are interlinked.
A new way of thinking is required to fully grasp the gyro space top and its implications.
Owen Liang Owes Me Money!
Owen also setup a direct way to purchase his Gyro Space Top using PayPal on one of his many sites.
https://sites.google.com/site/spacespinningtop/buying/Product
Retrieved: 25 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/BR3Tc
Buying Space top
For now, there are two temporary names for this invention: Gyrotop or space top. Need a nomenclature expert to decide the better one.
MES Note: I prefer to call it the Owen Liang Gyro Space Top!
I ordered two of these spinning tops through this form last year, but still haven’t received them, or gotten my money back. Is Owen Liang scamming me for my money? If so, then it is the first time I don’t mind getting scammed.
But if you are watching this video and are able to make a similar gyro space top, I would be interested in buying 100 billion of them from you!
Liang Distances Himself from "Angular Momentum" and So Do I
The great Owen Liang has written up his own “Declaration of Independence”.
https://sites.google.com/site/spacespinningtop/buying/declare-independent
Retrieved: 10 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/XYHeu
Declaration of Independence
angular momentum should not earn any credit for the work of spinning top physics. if experts insisting, the only contribution from angular momentum is a negative credit. Tops really want to say goodbye to angular momentum, which actually hindering the work of spinning top; however, by the law of nature, there is no way for tops able to get rid off the angular momentum, witch stays with tops forever. tops understand the angular momentum would not leave them alone, but at least, our science should not give the credit to angular momentum for the work of spinning top. Apparently our civilization looks like kind of dump; maybe alien are not so stupid.
Base on the action of space top, it is time for tops declaring an independent from the law of angular momentum. the day of independent would eventually be picked up by space top believers.
more nice photos.
Eventually, Tops would declare an independent from the law of angular momentum. The reading material for this page would be available when enough people know about space top.
My type of Scientist indeed! Where are the mass public demonstrations demanding an end to the "Angular Momentum" dictatorship?! Why must all public protests be about divisive social issues, instead of demanding real unifying science be taught!
Owen Liang Also Distances Himself from "Friction" and So Do I
Owen has some choice words for adherents of the catch-all term of “friction”.
https://inverselaw.000webhostapp.com/ani041.html
Retrieved: 14 May 2018
Archive: Not Available
I couldn't have said it better myself. How can "friction" overcome "angular momentum"?? Also how come a simple gravity top always points up even when its base is tilted? How do spinning tops and precessing gyroscopes automatically self-balance after any disturbance? In other words, it is not "friction"; although "friction" or a better understanding of “friction” may help shine some light on spinning top physics.
Also, how could “friction” cause spinning tops to rise but adding a counterweight torque to a gyroscope that is far in excess to any fictional and non-existent “friction torque” instead causes a gyro to drop?!
Owen Laing’s Inverse Law or Theory of Opposition
Owen Liang has developed his own explanation or theory for the way a spinning top works, which he refers to as the Inverse Law, Opposition Law, or the Theory of Opposition. I prefer to use the term “Inverse Law” after the name of one of his many websites: InverseLaw.com
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: Not Available
Owen’s “Inverse Law” states that spinning tops create an “inverting force” always opposite the direction of the falling force.
The U.S. Patent Office couldn’t explain the Gyro Space Top using conventional physics; remember folks, this is just essentially a piece of mass that is spinning.
The Illusion of “Angular Momentum”
In typical Owen Liang fashion, he has to create a third Channel for some strange reason, but in it he makes a great point about how “angular momentum” was able to fool so many for so long.
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/urz6j
A free gyroscope wants to keep its orientation even as the Earth rotates, hence the name "Gyro” or rotation and used to “scope” or measure the rotation of the Earth. But a spinning top changes its orientation as the Earth moves and is always spinning upright against the floor, thus suggesting angular momentum is indeed a pseudo-concept.
The Subtle Difference Between Spinning Tops and Typical Gyroscopes
Since spinning tops don't normally spin for very long, few see the difference between gyroscopes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope
Retrieved: 7 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/gLU4U
Gyroscope
In 1852, Foucault used it in an experiment involving the rotation of the Earth.[12][13] It was Foucault who gave the device its modern name, in an experiment to see (Greek skopeein, to see) the Earth's rotation (Greek gyros, circle or rotation),[14] which was visible in the 8 to 10 minutes before friction slowed the spinning rotor.
Gyroscope invented by Léon Foucault in 1852. Replica built by Dumoulin-Froment for the Exposition universelle in 1867. National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts museum, Paris.
Why not do the same experiment with a Spinning Top? If the spinning top test was done first would NASA be photoshopping Flat Earth images instead?! ;)
MES Note: P.S. I want that gyroscope!
The Profound Implications of Owen Liang’s Discovery: Gravity = Magnetism = Any Opposing Force?!
Owen Liang demonstrated that rotation of a magnetic gyro top behaves exactly like that of a non-magnetized spinning top as the Earth rotates, hence a basic "gravity top". In other words, when considering rotation, gravity and magnetism are one and the same. But he pushes this even further and argues that a spinning top behaves similarly when it is up against any "opposition" force; in other words, the very sensation of force is a form of magnetism! #AllIsMagnetism
https://sites.google.com/site/spacespinningtop/Interpretation
Retrieved: 29 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/d2mJq
…
Both acceleration top and centrifugal top have not been experimental tested yet. They are only the predictions for now. They are impossible task to investigate by a personal work, but it should be very easy job for NASA or Space X.
Looks like NASA and SpaceX needs to put aside their rocket science for the much more complex spinning top physics.
Rotation = Automatic Balancing!
Another profound consequence of spinning tops is that they can balance in opposition to gravity in much the same way as biological animals or robotic balancing machines, but without the need for sophisticated sensors.
In other words, the very act of rotation gives spinning tops the ability to automatically balance against the direction of gravity.
Retrieved: 9 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/xNBWS
A spinning top has intelligent smart balancing.
Interestingly, Owen awaits criticism of his inverse law theory which I will look to expand upon.
Owen Liang Explains Why the Gyro Space Top Was Invented Centuries Late
To understand the mindset behind true scientific discovery, look no further than Owen Liang.
Retrieved: 13 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/y8imU
Owen Liang demonstrates that both “stupidity” and “education” are illusions.
As monumental as his discovery that angular momentum is an illusion, a more profound discovery is that the very notion of “stupidity”, “laws of physics”, and “education” are also illusions.
How much do you actually know, or not know?
INCEPTION IS REAL
Is Reality Just a Dream?
Now what Owen Liang (together with his broken English) may just have uncovered is that we may literally all be living in a dream…
Remember, in Inception, if Leo's spinning top falls then he is in reality, but if it keeps spinning, he is in a dream.
And in what we call "reality", as the Earth rotates, a spinning top should want to hold its orientation due to "angular momentum" and thus appear tilted as the Earth rotates and eventually falling down. But that is not what happens, and instead it keeps spinning upright regardless of the rotation of the Earth.
Are we living in a dream?
If indeed this is all a dream, then any problem that exists in the world is actually just in your mind, and so too is the solution.
If you want to understand reality, you know where to look.
Further Explorering the Genius Mind of Owen Liang
This part of the video is where I discovered even FURTHER Owen Liang YouTube Channels, Websites, and even his Patent finally getting approved! Literally this guy makes it impossible to keep track of what he is doing…
Summary of Owen Liang’s Many Random Websites and Online Accounts I Covered Earlier
For future historical reference, here are the online accounts of Owen Liang that I have already covered.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Axis-Liang
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/0O262
https://www.quora.com/profile/Owen-Liang-6
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/wpCwc
https://www.quora.com/profile/Owen-Liang-8
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/pycjk
http://tiltedtop.blogspot.com/
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/rkNgm
https://www.blogger.com/profile/00204639632855697371
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/olh1U
He has even more blogs! I checked them all and the first is about his house (?), the next 3 are empty blogs, and the last is just his above blog. WHO DOES OWEN LIANG THINK HE IS?!
https://sites.google.com/site/spacespinningtop/
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/Rny4B
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: Not Available
https://www.amazon.com/Liangaxis-stip-100-Gyro-Top/dp/B01GGTYQYY
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/APsG8
https://www.youtube.com/user/LiangAxis/videos?sort=dd&view=0&shelf_id=0
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/Y7o1r
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCypmWusi1XGugg-VdDXxWHg/videos?sort=dd&view=0&shelf_id=1
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/d1ofv
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIRdHuS_4pKdYXSn42DzPg/videos?view=0&shelf_id=0&sort=dd
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/1WEZa
New Owen Liang Online Accounts I Recently Discovered!
The only bigger mystery than spinning tops, is Owen Liang. Instead of building up a single website or online account to make it easy to promote his monumental discovery into the public consciousness, he instead unintentionally obscures it by creating many separate and repetitive online accounts.
Here are the new accounts that I discovered halfway through researching for this video.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkkSIDQANVvesZ2SzpiOXOQ/videos?sort=dd&shelf_id=0&view=0
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/CUquG
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRCQ8XpP49K70L7rEkb15Og/videos?view=0&shelf_id=0&sort=dd
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/U4Sys
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC43Ly2McxnEwz92cwyxYMpw/videos
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/vUaWk
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/MqvQH
https://www.ebay.com/usr/gyrotop
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/Vc0Oe
Owen Liang's Kickstarter and the Man Behind the Legend
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/419602554/space-top-a-new-cousin-of-spinning-top-not-a-gyros
Retrieved: 19 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/5sdLs
https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/419602554/about
Retrieved: 19 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/PMw7X
Owen Liang with as inspirational a biography as it gets! Now he is working full time on his game-changing gyro space top!
The triumph of the individual over the collective.
https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/419602554/created
Retrieved: 19 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/7c3fo
Literally he has 5 Kickstarter campaigns, and all of which has been cancelled or not met the goal. Maybe if he stopped making multiple accounts for multiple websites and made more of a focused effort, he maybe could’ve attracted more open-minded investors. Fortunately, MES discovered his work…
Owen Liang Has Written Two Top Secret E-Books!
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/4eHTV
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B017ZZ57EG/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o00_?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/CM04r
Such an epic review!
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/VyoB9
This guy is on fire with these epic reviews!
Owen's New and Improved Website!
https://sites.google.com/view/law-of-inverse
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/43Wfy
Owen Liang’s Patent Finally Got Approved!
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/qYIKA
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: Not Available
Alternate URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R3uBsntNx2POAWsvlHyHDCsr_83z2no0/view
My Backup Link: https://1drv.ms/b/s!As32ynv0LoaIh7BOAfLPpG79S7YUXA
Very interesting. He applied on 29 May 2014, Application got published on 3 December 2015, and Patent Granted on 16 October 2018, just a few months ago!
Patent Application
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150343318A1/en?oq=20150343318
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/cBgxC
Patent Granted
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10099151B2/en?oq=20150343318
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/JPW6b
Highlights from His Newly Discovered Channels
I wanted to group together here many of the interesting highlights from Owen Liang’s random and unnecessary amount of new internet accounts.
Spinning Top Based Self-Balancing One-Wheeled Robot
Owen Liang utilizes spinning tops magical ability to auto-magically balance by creating a one-wheeled self-balancing robot!
Retrieved: 16 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/CBHqk
Amazing!
MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Spinning Tops Can Rise and Lift Much Greater Than Their Own Weight and at an Increased Rising Rate!
Owen Liang’s Inverse Law and one-wheeled robot means that spinning tops could still rise even if a lot of weight were added to it…
Retrieved: 11 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/nNFq0
130% lifting strength by spinning tops. And the quickness by which the top rises is amazing!
What’s more fascinating is that removing the heavy battery pack greatly lowers the rising rate and in fact could take several minutes to rise for this particular fast spinning top. This is as mind-boggling as it gets!
Adding weight = rising faster.
Removing weight = rising slower.
And as shown earlier, the opposite is true too: adding counterweight = dropping.
If you want to make gyros rise, try to make them drop; and vice versa. #InvertedGyroWorld
Bogus YouTube Comment Section “Critics” Not Thinking Clearly
Here is an example of the type of “critics” that repeat unthinking mainstream talking points whenever people dare challenge scientific orthodoxy.
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/QHqMH
What in the world is this clown talking about?!
"Gravity has nothing to do with a top staying up"…. Except that it causes a "torque" that causes the spinning top to rise? Do people even think about what they are stating? Magnetism has a “stabilization force” but gravity doesn’t? This “stabilization force” knows to always magically align the spinning top in direct opposition to it, even with an asymmetric magnetic field or with a hybrid of gravity and magnetism?
A gyroscope on a string doesn’t try to stand up?... Really? ;)
The only good thing this person said was mention John Hartman, which is another unique inventor. I recommend checking out his “Square Gyro” demonstration on YouTube! I will look to go over it in later videos.
Seriously, such arrogant (and ignorant) dismissive comments by the "scientifically literate" has kept humanity more in the dark than any "New World Order Secret Society Conspiracy" ever did or ever could.
Precessing Gyroscopes Rise Even When Hung on a String
It is comments as the one above that shake my being to the core. How can someone so sure of themselves be so wrong? How?!
Retrieved: 28 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/3Tavy
People have to finally accept the impossible: Spinning is “Anti-Gravitic”.
Also note that near the end, I show that by applying a spin counter to the gyro spin direction generates inertial lift.
When applying a spin in the same direction as the gyro spin, the tendency to maintain orientation is enhanced even as the gyro is thrown outwards but still maintains the same orientation.
Interestingly, even the unwinding of the string in the opposite direction of the gyro spin can generate slight tilting or inertial lift!
When the string unwinds in the same direction of the gyro spin, lift isn’t generated but the gyro becomes more fixed in its orientation.
The tendency for a gyroscope to align its rotor spin direction with the direction of precision or applied spin is the basic mechanism behind a “gyrocompass” which I will discuss further in this video.
MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Replicating the Rising Gyro on String Experiment with a Counterweight Makes it Drop!
As always in the upside-down world of gyroscopes, the opposite of what is expected happens. In the exact same experiment as above, in which a precessing gyroscope hung by a string rises, adding a counterweight or counter-torque that should assist the gyro in rising makes it lose its magical rising ability.
Retrieved: 11 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/7IbQL
So yes, even gyros hung by a string can rise upwards... or downwards!
MES Note: This is similar to my earlier demonstration of a gyroscope with counterweight magically dropping that should otherwise make it level. The main difference is that in the above experiment the weight distribution is such that the gyroscope wants to drop beyond just level position.
Note that the precession is reversed relative to the above two string experiments.
Bogus “Critic” Returns
The same clueless over-confident “critic” returns, and this time tries to downplay the amazing ability of gyroscopes to magically rise all on their own.
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/61KXf
Notice how steep Owen Liang’s son (I presume) starts the gyroscope off at and then it magically rises in a spiraling upwards precession very quickly. This was actually the first demonstration of a rising gyro in precession that I had seen, but initially I just assumed it was the same as a spinning top so I had not thought to see if it can spiral upwards without sliding/rolling across the surface like in my gyro rising experiments.
As much as I loath reading arrogant over-confident ignorance, I have to present it because the mindset of a person governs whether they give a few incoherent sentences regarding phenomena they have no clue about, or spending countless hours writing a self-appointed PhD rewriting all of conventional physics.
Fundamentally, the only difference in people is their awareness, or lack thereof.
“Moment of torque”, “translated by precession”, “90 degrees into the rotation”, “creates a spiral” that magically raises the gyroscope… LOL
So much “cutting corners” in Whipartist’s “logic”, so little time…
Instead of blindly defending the authority of mainstream physics, Whipartist could have taken the time to realize that even his “explanation” is nowhere to be found in all of Wikipedia or even any University in the world…
Owen Liang Still Won’t Respond to Me About Purchasing a Billion Gyro Space Tops!
I have tried contacting Owen Liang multiple times, even trying to buy his Gyro Top, but to no avail…
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/vNxw8
Automated Electric Gyro Space Top
Owen Liang made an automated electric air blower to keep his Gyro Space Top continuously spinning! And in true Owen Liang fashion, he includes his deep philosophy.
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/rgIHh
A truly great test to get mainstream "explanations" for everything, and not just top secret spinning top's secret: Ask “experts” and compare answers with other “experts”; and then ultimately compare with what you think; in other words, think logically about all things.
The reason Owen Liang was the one to uncover such a simple yet monumental discovery, is because he was seeing the world for what it was, rather than being blindfolded by pre-existing theories.
The spinning top represents a philosophical shift in our understanding of the nature of reality.
Highlights from Owen’s Kickstarter Campaigns
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/419602554/inverting-top-is-true-spinning-top-playable-at-any#
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/HH1wK
…
About
The natural law unknown to our science yet.
Demonstrating this invention to as many experts in physics as possible; if they could explain the inverting top with known laws of physics. The backer is entitled to receive a full refund & keep the inverting top.
…
The design of this invention is very simple, just playing the spinning top with attractive magnetic force, but nobody was stupid enough to make it first because the idea is against the law of physics. By pure luck, project creator noticed the flaw in our science, and then test his personal spinning top theory with this invention. The outcome of his test proves there is a mistake in our science regarding spinning top physics, and the existent of a special law unknown to our science yet. The law for spinning top is not just another natural law; it is a kind of law able to make nonliving entity smart. The first of the kind in our science history. Due to the law converting nonliving matter or dead material into smartness by just a simple spinning energy, this discovery would eventual effect the way of our thinking and take the philosophy into a new level of controversy.
…
Project creator is looking for experts to explain the invention of inverting top. If it is unexplained, there should be a science mistake or missing link in physics. The goal for project creator is correcting historical mistake or present the missing link to the right places. Therefore, sharing this project to others is most efficient way of helping the project. If you are the bakers, playing of inverting top should be shared with as many people as possible rather than playing on you own. So far, only U.S. patent office has admitted the invention is unexplainable. However, no expert wants to do the same admitting probably due to the feeling of embarrassing to do so.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/419602554/spacetop-revealing-a-science-mystery-for-high-scho
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/8wuKq
…
Playing space top is having fun with a science law not known to our civilization yet. Space top is here to spark our curiosity; specially for young mind.
Anyone able to correctly explain the space top with known laws of physics would be smartest person in this planet. No expert could do it so far, and the inventor of the space top is only able to interpret it with his own personal science theory, which is a potential discovery so far.
Space top is not a magic or hoax; it is a mystery in science. Public help would reduce the time required for solving the mystery.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/419602554/top-secret-of-spinning-every-science-lover-needs-t
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/FTE6C
…
We finally find out why spinning top has the name of "spinning top" , top in here means the top secret. The name is the abbreviation of spinning top secret.
MES Note: Yup, it is all in the name.
…
Both of them real, but no expert believes the right true so far. Your support would make the change.
…
The primary goal ($888 US D) : Getting E-book published .
The first stretch goal ($2,888 US D) : Making printed book available.
The second stretch goal ($6,888 US D) : Hardcover edition.
The next stretch goal would be the children book of space top due to new generations are much better learning correct science before exposing outdated knowledge from school. The cost for making children book is not clear at this moment.
Risks and challenges
The manuscript of this book has been finished. The next two steps are finding professional editing services and publisher for finishing up the eBook. Regarding printing book, the author does not know much about it. it should not hard or take much more time for transforming the eBook to printing book. Anyhow, every printing book backer would receive the eBook also, meaning no risk to learning top secret on time.
Owen Liang truly understood just how monumental his finding is and was trying to spread the knowledge as best as he could, and thus I am following in his footsteps.
Highschool Teacher Baffled by the Anti-Gravity Space Top
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/419602554/space-spinning-top
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/36i1D
…
MES Note: A high-school teacher states the obvious: the (automated) gyro-space top defies gravity!
…
Kickstarter “Critics” Repeating Typical Unthinking Appeal-to-Authority Talking Points
Retrieved: 1 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/dxIkb
As is typical in all of life, people defer to “authority” such as to “professors” instead of actually speaking for themselves: How would you know if a “professor” is correct if you don’t even know the topic?
“Athavan”, whom is a Kickstarter “Superbacker”, displays the typical robotic reactionary responses plaguing humanity and without even having a clue as to what Liang's invention is claiming. He also assumes that someone would cluelessly go out of their way to make a campaign to get funding for a device that can be seen with a quick internet search.
And little does Athavan realize, but even Bicycles are a complete mystery to mainstream “scientists”, as will be covered later in this video. Bikes can balance on a treadmill at low speeds without even a rider on it, interestingly displaying much the same auto-balancing magic of spinning tops and rising gyroscopes.
Also, note the theme of Owen having trouble getting his game-changing invention published, especially on Wikipedia which I will cover shortly.
Highlights from his New Google Site
https://sites.google.com/view/law-of-inverse
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/TLkRQ
…
The law of inverse is a very novel approach to interpret how spinning top works. Since the personal law has been very successfully predicting several new phenomenons for spinning top, it is very necessary to share the novel ideas and predictions to the public or science community. This novel ideas is here to challenge the well established knowledge about spinning top physics, and the author is desperate waiting for experts to take or response the challenge. The readers who does not have enough knowledge in physic could still help by sharing this web pages or Google site directly or indirectly to the experts in physics. The author has been trying to present to matter to experts for many years, so far none of them want to address the issue. The discovery claim is solidly supported by the invention with U.S.Patent No. 10,099,151 or in PDF, which is looks likes a 100% hoax to anyone who has enough knowledge in physics. The discovery was very simple, but it is very unexpected, and nobody is expected the unexpected. For quick view of the invention, use the link or click "inverting top" or "4-category of top"
…
If you are a researcher in physics, there is chance for the novel theory able to benefit your work. Spinning top physics is a fundamental science, and modern physics was build on the foundation. If a A flaw in the foundation, it should have negative effect on the mordant physics or prevent something from being discovered. There should be more high level physics missing link relating to basic missing link in spinning top physics.
Owen is right: if the mainstream physics of a spinning top is flawed, so too is all modern physics since they depend on the foundation that is a spinning mass, or “inertia” in general.
Owen Liang References My #MESExperiments Part 1 Video of Rising Gyros!
https://sites.google.com/view/law-of-inverse/inverse-law
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/yGxhN
…
The self rising phenomenon have been one of biggest puzzle for physics experts because it against the law of angular momentum. Some excuses have been used for explanation of spinning top defying the law, but none of them has good experimental support for the excuse. The novel law of inverse offer a perfect and simple explanation for self rising phenomenon. The word “simple” in here means that anybody with high school physics level should be able to understand how spinning top is able to defy the law of angular momentum.
…
Fig. 12 are snap shot from video Gyroscopes Precess UPWARDS on Low Friction & Rotating Surfaces or link:
Fig. 10a is the shot from time 4:52 and Fig. 10b is from time 6:41. The name for this device is gyroscope, actually it works as a spinning top because the single contact point. It takes 49 second to change from tilt to upright.
Amazing!
Owen’s Updated Theory of Opposition and the Liang Force
Owen has a more recent theory to explain his #InverseLaw finding, and which he uses “Liang Forces” to indicate there may be offset horizontal forces, thus an “upwards torque”.
https://sites.google.com/view/law-of-inverse/novel-theory?authuser=0
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/b0WDN
…
About 10 years ago, author feel the frictions explanation is not logic enough to interpret the self rising, the strong curiosity keep him to think about a better idea to solve the problem.. Not sure how many weeks later, one fantasy idea pops up. How about make one pair of centrifugal force horizontally rather than orthogonal to spinning axis as shown in Fig. 26d or Fig. 26f. Even Though this idea breaks the orthogonal rule (or maybe law) between spinning axis and centrifugal force, it works perfectly to explain self rising phenomenon.. The obvious advantage for horizontally centrifugal force (Liang Force) is not cancelling each other out to zero. As mentioned earlier, One pair of Orthogonal centrifugal force always cancel each other out to zero because they are at opposite in direction co-axially. No net force left for helping self rising work. If spinning top plays at tilting position, horizontal centrifugal forces (Liang Force) would never co-axially to each other, so there could be some kind of force left responsible the work of self rising. If spinning top tilting toward right, the Liang force is good for turn top toward left in Fig. 26f; when spinning top tilting toward left, Liang force favor toward right Fig. 26d.
I had originally entertained this theory and thought maybe the precession itself was causing an “imbalance” of precessional centripetal/centrifugal force or precessional angular momentum of the tilted wheel. But my earlier demonstration of the gyroscope dropping when a counterweight is added suggests that the very concept of “forces” and “torque” needs to be re-examined.
More Highlights from his New Site
https://sites.google.com/view/law-of-inverse/inverting-top
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/PU2Fp
…
We have used to the wrong rules or law that spinning top only balance at upright direction. The invention of inverting top demonstrate top able to balance at any direction. With wrong physics law for spinning top, experts would think the inverting top a hoax or impossible. Without know enough physics, average people see nothing wrong with invention of inverting top..
…
The author has been trying to share the video recording of inverting top to public through YouTube and then receive very negative respond because the inverting top looks like 100% hoax to anyone who has enough knowledge in physics. This is the reason for author to apply U.S. Patent for the invention to make inverting top more much more credible than it looks. The patent # serves as a searchable trusted public documents for convincing experts to realize the historical science mistake or a missing link. Unsurprisingly, the patent examiners was doubt on the invention also and did search on the matter and conclusions the inverting top is defying the know natural law. In order for the patent applications to be continued, a prototype of inverting top need to be sent to patent office to make sure the invention really works in reality.
…
Conventional observation is far from enough to claim the law of inverse. The experimental design below deliver a very novel and strong spinning phenomenon to support the law of inverse. The name for the experiment device is inverting top, which look like a hoax. To convince the expert the inverting top being a reality, the inverting top have made available in online stores: Amazon and eBay. But still the inverting top is too fantasy to be science. It took fours years for this invention to get u.s. Patent number, which be convincing enough for some experts to believe the invention being real. If it is real, it means a mistake in our science because know against the invention. This is the reason nobody want to invent it until now.
Physic expert not only have to expect the unexpected, but also have to accept the unexpected simply because it is already a reality.
For those who still not convinced, they are welcome contact u.s. Patent office reporting patent # could not be real because it is against the know law of physics. However before doing so, it is recommended to order a inverting top from eBay or a ozone first to make sure it is not real. Otherwise you would definitely insulting or embarrassed yourself at the end .
Patent No. 10,099,151
https://sites.google.com/view/law-of-inverse/get-involved
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/VnGx9
Any natural phenomenon unexplained by our known science should be considered as top secret science because it is nature's secret beyond our ability to understanding the nature. However, this google site is not is not about the science in our advance science or research area. The top secret science in here is about the science at high school level; more specifically it is about high school physics mistake in our textbook. all the physics textbook in the world have the same mistakes. it is almost impossible to make reader to understand the mistake until reader watch a invention plays in the following video link.
Any natural phenomenon unexplained by our known science should be considered as top secret science
Think about that: every single textbook in the world doesn’t know how a spinning top behaves.
Highlights from his Patent
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10099151B2/en?oq=20150343318
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/I0eds
…
(1) Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a spinning top assembly, particularly relates to a spin axis controllable spinning top assembly capable of changing spinning orientation thereof under proper control to defy gravity when spinning at any orientation thereof. Especially, a spinning top assembly in accordance with the present invention is capable of continuing changing orientation of a defined spin axis thereof under proper control when an orientation thereof varies from a regular horizontal spinning orientation during spinning of the spinning top assembly as desired.
MES Note: Literally Owen's patent states his spinning top defies gravity!
- The Related Arts
A rotation axis or spin axis is an imaginary line around which a three-dimensional object rotates or spins. Every rotating object such as a motor, wheel, gyroscope, or spinning top must have a defined rotation axis. To hold the rotation axis of a rotating object at desirable orientation, it requires least two anchored points along the rotation axis. Almost all manmade rotating objects are able to satisfy these two simple requirements except a spinning top. Two bearings on each side of a rotor are the anchored points for a rotating object such as an electrical motor or gyroscope. Positions of these two bearings dictate the orientation of the rotors. In contracting, a spinning top only has one contacting point or a single solid anchored point, manipulating orientation of its spin axis was never possible in any past prior arts. The spinning top could not have more than one solid contacting point to be function as spinning top. This uncontrollable spin axis of the spinning top does not mean its rotation axis acts randomly. For some reason, the spin axis of the spinning top always wants to go a vertical orientation no matter where its starting orientation is. The spinning top moves from its tiled position to an upright position by precession or wobbling. In another word, the spinning top could not hold still at any tilted position; it will become precession until reach the upright position.
The main structural difference between a gyroscope and spinning top is the number of the supporting points for their spinning shafts or spin axis. Spinning tops have only one supporting point while a gyroscope has two supporting points. Therefore the orientation of a gyroscope is decided by the locations of the two supporting points. Obviously, the orientation of a spinning top is uncontrollable due to there is only one supporting point. There is no second supporting point to confine the spinning axis of the spinning top.
Unlike a gyroscope, the spinning top is only limited to play at its upright or vertical orientation. Any external force for changing its vertical orientation would cause the spinning top starting precession. The purpose of this procession of the spinning top is to move back to the vertical position again. In another word, the spinning top could not hold stable at any tilt position. Natural limitation of a spinning top is restricted to such upright orientation. To break such limitation of the spinning top and to stabilize the spinning top at any orientation thereof becomes a main issue to be addressed.
Especially, according to a personal explanation theory created by the inventor of the present invention, the spinning top deals with two kinds of forces, a falling force and a standing force. Spinning of the spinning top creates the standing force which is always opposite to the falling force. In all previous arts, since the falling force is the gravity all the time, the direction of standing force, which is opposite to the gravity, always goes up. As a result, no other direction for the standing force is considered to be possible.
Hence, based on a new spinning top theory of the inventor of the present invention, a novel design or method to confine orientations of a spinning top at any directions as desired is considered and provided in the present invention as described hereinafter.
Owen Liang literally has a patent approved by the US Patent office that states his Gyro Space Top defies gravity and the physics of how it works is based on his own theory, since there is no conventional physics theory that could explain such simple gyro magic.
Highlights from his Top Secret Books
Here are some highlights from his two Top Secret books.
New Theoretical Top: Flying Tops
Owen Liang expands on his Inverse Law and suggests other ways to test out spinning top behavior. One such way is a basic spinning top while flying on a plane. The top should always align perfectly against the direction of gravity.
This is from Owen’s first Top Secret book.
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/JDEF0
Notice that if the plane were to fly perfectly straight, the spinning top would appear tilted to the passengers on board! I will definitely be bringing a spinning top on my next flight.
New Theoretical Top: Astroid Turning Top
Just as with Einstein’s theory of general relativity, a rotating/accelerating surface such as a rotating asteroid mimics gravity and thus should allow spinning tops to also magically align with the rotation.
Spiral Precession is True Precession, NOT Circular Precession
Owen Liang was the first person that I had seen to correct the bogus fake physics that “spinning tops precess in a constant circular motion”. Has anyone actually spun a spinning top? What fake reality or dream world are these “physicists” living in?
When I first looked at the mainstream "explanation" for, in particular gyroscopes, I literally believed that they only precessed like this instead of spiraling upwards; and this was because I couldn’t logically think that mainstream physics could get something so incredibly basic so incredibly wrong. It wasn’t until I videotaped my gyro experiments, and when I reviewed the film at a sped-up playback speed I noticed that the gyro rose a very tiny bit. This ultimately led me to my game-changing MES Experiments video series!
Seriously, the people that draw up these completely incomplete "circular precession" nonsense should be ashamed of themselves.
“Angular Momentum” Can’t Explain the Gyro Space Top
The pseudo-science “angular momentum” can’t explain how spinning tops rise and much less how the gyro space top magically moves away from the stronger magnetic disk as the base is being tilted.
Yup, this was the first thought I had when I saw the Gyro Space Top. How is the spinning top moving away from magnetic base?! Now think of what happens when the spin speed is much greater, i.e. high "angular momentum", yet the result should still be the same, which is the gyro self-corrects with complete disregard for this mystical non-existent "angular momentum".
No Upwards Force Can Be Found to Explain How a Spinning Top Rises
Owen Liang has a good analogy on how “centrifugal force” is pulling the spinning top on both sides thus canceling each other out. Note that even Owen doesn’t know that the precession of spinning tops moves with zero centrifugal force.
This is from Owen Liang’s second Top Secret Book
https://www.amazon.com/Top-Secret-Spinning-fundamental-discovery-ebook/dp/B017ZZZBMY
Retrieved: 20 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/8r6hA
Theoretical “Liang Forces” or Horizontal Centrifugal Forces that Create Upwards Torque
Here are some more thoughts by Owen Liang on his theoretical “Liang Forces” which I went over earlier.
Owen Liang makes some great points about how modern physics allows for the creation of complex technology but can’t explain how a simple spinning top rises. He also acknowledges that his theory for how a spinning top rises is highly unlikely, but nonetheless, he represents true scientific exploration!
Owen Liang Mistakenly Assumes That Faster Spinning Speeds Equate to Faster Rising
Owen’s theory that horizontal centrifugal forces are the cause for spinning tops to rise gives the inaccurate notion that faster spin speeds should mean a faster rising time since these horizontal “Liang forces” are greater.
When coming up with theory for anything it is important to test anything and everything that follows from the theory. When assumptions are untested, even seemingly well founded theories can serve as stumbling blocks to true knowledge.
MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Faster Gyro Spin Speed Does Not Necessarily Mean Faster Rising
As shown earlier, adding weight to a spinning top (or gyroscope) can make it rise faster, but adding a counterweight to try to lift it instead causes it to drop. Such is the counter-intuitive world of gyroscopes.
But this also appears to be the case for faster gyro (or spinning top) spin speeds. The faster spin speed, assuming it is above the spin speed needed to maintain precession, can slow the rate at which the gyroscope rises.
Retrieved: 27 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/xYtIZ
For this particular toy gyroscope, when manually spun up it rises in about 30 seconds.
Using a power drill to increase the spin speed causes the same small toy gyroscope to rise in about double the time.
Retrieved: 27 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/ZG79J
Spinning the gyro with a power drill makes it rise in about 1 minute.
This is a very interesting finding that further illustrates the counter-intuitive properties of gyroscopes. Thus, you can’t make any assumptions about gyroscopes without backing it up with experiments!
Gravity as a “Soft Anchor” and Theoretical Liang Axis
Owen Liang extends his theory further by considering the ground support as a “hard anchor support” while the weight of the spinning top due to gravity is the “soft anchor support”. And supposedly the weight is held up by a “supporting force” at the theoretical “Lian Axis” and due to the theoretical “Liang Forces”.
Multiple or Distributed Theoretical Liang Axis and Force
Owen extends his theoretical Liang forces even further by distributing them throughout the spin axis of the spinning top; similar to the summing up of infinite rectangles for integral calculus.
MES Gyroscope Experiments Appear to Contradict Owen’s Theoretical “Liang Forces”
Although this is some very interesting and unique theorizing by the great Owen Liang, as I demonstrated earlier, I believe that my counterweight string gyroscope experiment flips even Owen Liang’s theory upside down, literally.
Gyros drop when they should rise and rise when they should fall… #MirrorWorld
Nonetheless, Owen Liang was on his own in his research as the world was blinded by the hierarchical pyramid scheme known as “peer-reviewed academic science”.
Owen’s First Gyro Space Top Prototype
Here is the first device Owen created which led to the discovery of the gyro space top!
I will go over the tippy top and phi top further in this video; and yes, both also defy “mainstream” physics.
Inspirational and Heart Felt Top Secret Poem
On the last page of his book, Owen Liang wrote one of the most beautiful poems ever written.
Owen Liang, one of the greatest minds this world has ever known, gives rise to the ultimate paradox.
The simplest of objects shatters centuries old conventional overly complicated physics yet discovered by the simplest of minds.
Owen Liang’s Battle with Wikipedia to Get the Gyro Space Top Published
This part of the video was made before Owen Liang's patent got approved, so although it shows the grim reality of publishing game-changing important information on Wikipedia without mainstream accepted references to the information, the silver-lining is that with Owen's now-approved patent, it may actually be possible to get an article or edit published! I will look to do this in the near future too! But nonetheless, this is a great inside-look at the hurdles involved in getting Wikipedia articles or edits to articles published.
Also, getting approved on Wikipedia has as much do to with how you present yourself and your work to the editors as with the actual knowledge you are trying to convey; something which Owen didn’t take into account.
Retrieved: 8 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/LChqG
Without “expert” approval, articles don’t get published even if they are self-evident in their claims.
Retrieved: 8 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/hcQPQ
Wikipedia “Orphans” Articles with No Links from Other Pages
Without links or references, articles get labeled as “orphans” which require further input before getting accepted globally on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan
Retrieved: 8 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/YF8Lw
Wikipedia:Orphan
In the Wikipedia glossary, an orphan is defined as "an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace". These pages can still be found by searching Wikipedia, but it is preferable that they can also be reachable by links from related pages; it is therefore helpful to add links from other suitable pages with similar and/or related information. De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web.
Would an article that simply states that gyroscopes magically rise be considered an “orphan”?
Owen Liang’s Communications with Wikipedia from August 2015 to June 2016
As expected from the relentless Owen Liang, he makes a Wikipedia profile in hopes of getting his article published, even if it means convincing clueless admins.
Retrieved: 8 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/735RL
From August 2015 to June of 2016, Owen has been trying to get his page and edits approved but to no avail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gyrotop
Retrieved: 8 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/lVp48
Owen’s Orphan Articles Considered “Spam” and a “Hoax”
The main issue with Wikipedia, as with pretty much all of life, is that the editors focus on bureaucracy while only considering conventional narratives thus any contradiction in facts, be it scientific, political, or especially conspiratorial, will be brushed aside without much thought. But then again, what is one to expect from getting information from nameless, unknown, and unaccountable authors?
“Wikipedia” says gyros don’t rise vs. MES experiments showing they do…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2015_December_8
Retrieved: 8 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/wuvZH
Wikipedia is Not a Place for Original or Non-Mainstream Research
This thread essentially sums up why Owen Liang couldn’t get his Gyrotop article published. To get on Wikipedia you need to first reference mainstream “journals” or media outlets; which thus begs the question what is the true goal of Wikipedia? Although this makes strategic sense when dealing with millions of articles, the end result is essentially getting the world to collectively document every topic from a uniform narrative, while removing contrary viewpoints, unless of course these “contrary” viewpoints are written about in mainstream sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gyrotop
Retrieved: 8 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/vAkMD
…
Possibly unfree File:Apple and spinning top.jpeg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Apple and spinning top.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Gyrotop/sandbox[edit]
A tag has been placed on User:Gyrotop/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion".
…
Speedy deletion nomination of Spinning top secret
A tag has been placed on Spinning top secret requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.
…
Proposed deletion of Space top
No references and no indication of notability.
MES Note: Seriously, what kind of oblivious people are editing Wikipedia pages about topics that they have no direct knowledge of?
…
Speedy deletion nomination of Space top
Hello Gyrotop,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Space top for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015[edit]
This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
…
Original Research
Please read the original research policy. Your post to User talk:Ubiquity indicates that you think that you have made a new discovery in physics. Wikipedia is not the place to publish new discoveries in physics. A journal is the usual first place of publication for new science. Alternatively, if you can persuade a reporter for a science magazine such as Discovery, or a science reporter for a major newspaper such as the New York Times that your discovery is worth reporting, Wikipedia can then reference the publication in a journal, magazine, or newspaper. If you are trying to use Wikipedia to sell a toy, read Wikipedia is not for advertising. Your persistence in trying to use Wikipedia either to publish original research or to sell a toy is becoming tendentious. You are at risk of being blocked from editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
MES Note: Mainstream "journals" and media outlets are a requirement to get on Wikipedia; i.e. thus explaining why there is no difference between mainstream outlets and Wikipedia.
Retrieved: 10 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/WWRdXtendentious (comparative more tendentious, superlative most tendentious)
(1) Having a tendency; written or spoken with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose, especially a controversial one. quotations ▼
(2) Implicitly or explicitly slanted.As a supporter of the cause, his reports were tendentious in the extreme.
…
June 2016
Hello, I'm Crystallizedcarbon. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Angular momentum— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
…
Warning
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Angular momentum and Talk:Gyroscope. - DVdm (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Your draft article, User:Gyrotop/sandbox
Hello, Gyrotop. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin Let's talk! 09:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Owen Liang Didn’t Help His Case…. LOL
As game-changing as Owen Liang’s Gyro Space Top is, if I were in the shoes of the Wikipedia editors, I too may have blocked this clown HAHAHA
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angular%20momentum&diff=725437683
Retrieved:: 28 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/uIHi0
LOL
Owen literally put his edit right on top of the “Angular momentum” article, and with a link to his email address… The irony of all this is that as seemingly out of place his edit was, which any admin would delete his post at first glance, his post doesn’t just belong at the top of the Angular momentum page, but front and center of the homepage of Wikipedia itself.
Owen’s Further Communications with Oblivious Admins
Owen was even willing to send his gyro space top to the admins! And I’m still waiting for my space top…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ubiquity/Archive_3
Retrieved: 8 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/QhjJM
Invention
Hi Ubiquity: I would like to send my invention to you for free to verify it is not hoax. Gyrotop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrotop (talk •contribs) 20:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Please don't. I am not interested in using Wikipedia for purposes other than building an encyclopedia. Also, in the future, please put new correspondence at the BOTTOM of the page (this was at the top, but I moved it), and please sign your remarks with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
you think my space top is a hoax, so I like to send one to verify it is not. My invention reveals a new knowledge in physics, encyclopedia is the place for knowledge. People need to play my space top realize the knowledge. I am not familiar with Wikepedia, please help me to do it right. thanks for your respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrotop (talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
why Levitron top is o.k. at WikipeiA, my space top could not stay. tell me the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrotop (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Gyrotop: The difference is that the Levitron article has 10 references, and was not written by its inventor. By now at least four people have told you the same thing, when will you start listening to us? ubiquity (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I've cautioned the editor who claims to have made a new discovery in physics to read the original research policy. Unfortunately, I think that this editor may need blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It's sad but certainly possible. ubiquity (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_11
Retrieved: 8 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/kPd8f
Looking for help for posting a science discovery in Wikipedia.
there could be a historical science mistake in spinning top physics. please take look what this mistake is about in below links. >
https://sites.google.com/site/spacespinningtop/ My discovery needs to find experts for further investigation. Wikipedia is good place for the job, but my article was always unacceptable. Anyone has a better idea? — Preceding unsignedcomment added by Gyrotop (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You have previously been warned cautioned not to use Wikipedia to try to advance your original research. If you can't get it published in a journal, try to get it published in a science magazine such as Popular Science or a newspaper. If you want experts, you may look for them at WP:WikiProject Physics. They may agree or disagree with you, and may tell you what is wrong with your conclusions. Please do not use Wikipedia to try to publish original research. Do not insert statements about your original research into existing articles. That almost certainly will result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adog104/Archive_1
Retrieved: 8 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/kmfNa
Space top
The article was speedied a couple of times, but I think you can still see a video of it:File:Space top.webm. Probably that file should be deleted too, but I don't know how to do it. ubiquity (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Me neither, but I did find this page which I think its how to delete the file @Ubiquity: if you want me to nominate it; and seems like a nice science invention that a teacher would show off, but it should be marked since its now an orphan. Adog104 Talk to me 22:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
my article is similar to Levitron, why my space top has to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrotop (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Gyrotop:Presuming if the above is from the user who I marked earlier. I marked it for a speedy deletion due to it being written as a promotion for a product/patent that you may or may not own (which is WP:G11) and I marked it as it had not indicated why the product important besides that "this is my product and here's information about how to get it" (which is WP:A7). However your product seems to resemble a Gyroscope, just only created by yourself, which isn't really your product, but a recreation of something that has already been created (which I'll give you props for creating it, it did seem cool). Adog104 Talk to me 22:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like a bad comedy movie, if only the stakes weren’t so high…
Please Help by Posting on Wikipedia or Emailing Mainstream Outlets on My Behalf
If you would like to help out, the best way would be to start sharing some of the gyro magic MES Experiments unto Wikipedia and other mainstream sources! For example, send my videos of gyroscopes magically rising on ice to every professor of every university or mainstream media science writers you can think of!
Also make sure to utilize my videos and Owen’s patent as references and help flip the “angular momentum” Wikipedia page upside down with real science. Let’s finish what Owen Liang started.
Francis McCabe 1000X+ Torque Over-Unity Large Gyro Wheel!
The earlier sections showcased simple experiments by Eric Laithwaite, Owen Liang, and MES (i.e. me) that demonstrate “angular momentum” is just an illusion, and ironically much like the “pseudo” concept that Wikipedia defines it as. Another brilliant inventor that demonstrates this finding is the late great Francis McCabe. He lived from 3 May 1936 to 15 March 2014 and was a former Rocket Scientist that worked for both NASA and Boeing before moving to the much more difficult Gyro Science. Francis takes gyroscopes to a level that even I had not imagined would be possible.
Francis demonstrates the illusion of “angular momentum” in his famous Large Gyro Wheel experiment while simultaneously showing that a small motor can generate over 1000 times its rated torque output but only when it is precessing! Take some time to truly ponder this:
A 1000X+ Torque Over-Unity
@mes/mesexperiments-8-large-gyro-wheel-precesses-at-1000x-torque-over-unity-freeenergy
Retrieved: 31 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/dOQdN
Over-unity, Free Energy, and Anti-Gravity is screaming right in front of our faces!
Precession Gives the Illusion of “Angular Momentum”
This image is self-explanatory and illustrates Francis’ experiment.
A motor with a maximum torque rating of 1 inch-pounds essentially means that it can maintain sustained spin speed of a 1 lb wheel at a horizontal distance of 1 inch from the rotor. But when the wheel is allowed to precess freely on a low friction surface, a rotating platform, or hung up by a wire, then the precession appears to magically remove the torque, allowing the motor to maintain and even increase in spin speed but at absurd amounts of weight, even a 1000 lb wheel!
Thus, the pseudo-concept of “angular momentum” is not what maintains a gyroscope in precession since it can’t even maintain spin speed when it is physically supported. It appears that “precession” itself may be the main candidate that is holding up the gyroscope.
The Magical Potential of Gyro Over-Unity Power
Let’s think about what the great Francis McCabe has demonstrated. A motor capable of only spinning a 1 pound bicycle wheel, can nonetheless power a 1000 pound motorcycle but only if its “precessing”!
Absolute ludicrous magic!
Manually Powered Gyro Precession Over-Unity Power Generator?!
Now the question that must be asked: how (not if) can we turn gyro-precession over-unity into usable energy?
Is the secret to free energy installing a large manually powered precessing gyroscope in the home of everyone in the world? #IThinkSo
Francis McCabe’s 88X Torque Over-Unity Oscillating Gyro Piston Prototype
Francis demonstrates the practical applications of gyro torque over unity by creating a prototype of a piston generated from the back and forth oscillations during forced precession of gyro wheels.
Retrieved: 2 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/38gkv
This is absolutely amazing!
Here is a simple illustration of a compressed air cylinder piston:
http://blog.parker.com/know-your-pneumatics-single-or-double-acting-choosing-the-right-cylinder
Retrieved: 7 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Xn4OO
Essentially the compression of air builds up in pressure and can generate force on the piston.
Here are the stats that McCabe describes regarding his Gyro Piston/Dynamo:
- The piston exerts upwards 210 pounds of force at about 10 inches from the fulcrum, thus 210*10 = 2,100 inch-pounds of torque is required to compress the piston.
- The precession rotor is capable of 21 inch-pounds.
- The gyro-wheels rotor is capable of about 3 inch-pounds.
- Total output torque / total input torque = 2,100 in-lb / 24 in-lb = 87.5 Torque over-unity!
When the gyro-wheels aren’t spinning, the piston barely moves but shakes a bit mainly from the imbalance of the overall setup. When the gyro-wheels are rotating, forced precession from the precession rotor cause the gyroscopes to exert massive amounts of torque far greater than the combined input of the two rotors are capable of. This torque is manifested through the oscillating back and forth motion of the gyro-setup as it acts upon the piston. This oscillation motion is due to the forced precession constantly switching directions as the gyro-wheels twist.
Over Unity Gyro Piston Powered Car?
Imagine this simple gyro torque over-unity piston mechanism being used to power cars with extremely low amounts of electrical input power.
Over Unity Compact Gyro Piston Powered Bicycle?
What about a manually self-charging small gyro-piston bike?!
Over Unity Giant Gyro Piston Power Plant?
The possibilities are endless!
Eric Laithwaite Demonstrated Forced Precession Gyro Torque Over-Unity in 1974 Lecture
This is actually the same “over-unity” or gyro super torque power generation that Eric Laithwaite demonstrated in his 1974 lecture, and which I have shown in #AntiGravity Part 1.
Retrieved: 27 January 2018
Archive: https://archive.is/nXpE7
Notice how the gyroscope wants to rise upwards while chaotically shaking the entire table back and forth! Gyros have the ability to demonstrate zero mass or creating a ripple in the aether.
In this case, the rate of precession is increased, hence “forced precession”, from the spinning shaft rolling forward on the enclosed roof, hence like a rolling wheel.
Eric Laithwaite stated that the rolling of the shaft on the roof was the cause of the forced precession, but I believe another big factor is the actual pushing downwards by the roof on the shaft.
Forced precession induces rising torque, but downwards torque induces forced precession… #ForceMultiplier
This may be why the small gyro wheel can shake the entire table and enclosure.
MES BOMSHELL DISCOVERY: Downwards Torque Induces Forced Precession Which Induces Rising Torque?!
As I alluded to above regarding Eric Laithwaite’s forced precession powerful torque generation experiment, the downwards push by the roof itself is causing forced precession which thus creates a cycle of multiplicative rising torque generation.
I had demonstrated earlier for a spinning top which rises instantly when weight is added! Without the weight that particular spinning top takes minutes to rise.
This is also true for a gyroscope; on a needle just for magical fun.
MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Gyroscopes Can Rise Upwards Faster When Weight is Added and Can Rise Even on a Needle
These needle-gyro-weight-added experiments may be some of the most amazing, yet simple experiments ever performed!
Retrieved: 15 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Nltem
Without any added putty this toy gyroscope rises in about 27 seconds.
Retrieved: 15 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/SyMhP
With a 30% by weight added putty, the gyroscope rises in about 12 seconds, albeit unevenly since the overall weight of the putty is too much for the gyro. Adding weight can double the speed of gyro rising?! What kind of upside down world do we live in?
Let’s increase the putty weight and increase the rotor speed to see what happens.
Retrieved: 15 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/fGiDl
The gyroscope rises instantly and then chaotically breaks the needle!!
Precessing wheels are the definition of magic.
Francis McCabe Demonstrates Precession Requires No Additional Power Input Even at Torque Over-Unity
As Francis demonstrated in his earlier over-unity demonstrations, the gyro wheel requires no additional electrical power to power the wheel during precession, be it forced or “natural”. In fact, he states that the electrical input is less than is required to simply spin the wheel without any applied torque!
MES Note: “Natural” precession is nonetheless still “forced” as my earlier demonstrations showed that adding weight increases the rate precession. Thus, the very weight of the gyro-wheel can be considered as a form of “forced precession”.
The following demonstration involves Francis “forcing the precession” by simply applying a spin that is counter to the gyro spin direction, which makes it rise magically upwards but with no change to the input power; thus torque over-unity, magical gyro rising, massless gyro behavior, inertial lift, and all while no extra input power is required or even could do with less! #MagicMagicMagic
Retrieved: 28 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/ji3hf
Note that from his statements in the video compared with his video title and description, the torque over-unity is either 240/16 = 15X or 280/6.38 = 43.89X; either way, it is impressive! Also note that the applied forced precession as well as the input power to turn the gyro wheels require no extra input all while generating over-unity torque and inertial magical lift.
Clueless “Critics” Need to Remove the Blindfold Covering Their Minds
Once again, reactionary delusional comments and the illusion of “angular momentum” rear its presence downplaying and covering up gyro free energy torque over unity magic with the most dangerous mindset of all:
Arrogant and/or overly confident ignorance.
Note the following commenter is more on the overly confident side and less on the arrogant side as compared with previous commenters covered earlier.
Literally, these clowns need to stop posting unthinking comments towards people that go through the effort of actually building and experimenting. Instead of posting the first thought that comes to mind, why doesn’t Tim consider for a second that maybe this retired rocket scientist has already entertained possible conventional explanations which is why he spent the countless hours required in developing the device?!
Seriously, is it too much to ask to put oneself in another person’s shoes?
Tim brings up the bogus non-existent “angular momentum” term which he doesn’t define what it is or how it is “storing kinetic energy” from “mechanical energy” which was converted from “electrical energy” which was “enough energy stored” in the battery to lift the precessing wheel (far in excess what it is rated to do).
What in the world does this nonsense mean?! And what world is Tim living in?!
Tim also makes a bogus irrelevant analogy to a pully system lifting a 10 lb weight with a small AAA battery that requires 2 hours (although his experiment does sounds pretty epic). Francis is lifting a heavy wheel in real time, in seconds not 2 hours, and with no extra power input required; again, lifting upwards as well as maintaining spin speed through just turning the top handle; i.e. “forced precession” counter to the gyro spin direction is causing inertial magical rising lift with no reaction or even shaking of the supports all while the spin speed and input power is not affected. This is as absolute magic as it gets, but just requires Tim to remove the blindfold covering his mind to see it.
MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Gyroscopes Exert “Inertial Forces” With Zero Loss in Spin Speed
In one of the most game-changing, yet simple, experiments of all time, my #MESExperiments Part 3 video demonstrated that gyroscopes exert “inertial” resistance to manually twisting or even magical upwards precession with zero additional loss of spin speed relative to a stationary gyroscope. This confirms Francis McCabe’s findings while further discrediting the mainstream “conservation of (non-existent) angular momentum”.
Retrieved: 17 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/BSvmp
Guess the “conservation” of the illusion of “angular momentum” is itself an illusion… #ConservationOfDelusion
Wikipedia Deletes Francis McCabe’s Wikipedia Page a Few Days Ago…
Literally a few days ago on April 8th, I noticed that Francis Joseph McCabe’s Wikipedia page was being listed for deletion, and then shortly later it gets deleted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_J._McCabe
Retrieved: 12 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/M1YvR
Such an absolute disgrace.
Fortunately, I Archived His Wikipedia Page
It was a matter of fate that I archived his Wikipedia page just before it got deleted. Below are screenshots of the full webpage as well as the direct reference links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_J._McCabe
Retrieved: 8 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/dbwIx
References
(1) ^ a b c d e "Francis J. McCabe, inventor and business owner". Chestnut Hill Local. March 26, 2014.
(2) ^ "Francis Joseph McCabe". Varcoe-Thomas Funeral Home of Doylestown.
(3) ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "Global Solutions To End Pollution". Fran McCabe.com.
(4) ^ a b c d e f g Lou Mancinelli (January 8, 2013). "Mt. Airy Inventor finds new uses for the gyroscope". Chestnuthill Local.
(5) ^ "Patents by Inventor Francis J. McCabe". Justia Patents.
(6) ^ a b c d e f g h i "Francis McCabe Inducted into Worldwide Who's Who for Excellence in Mechanical Engineering and Aerodynamics". Worldwide Who's Who. July 27, 2013. Mr. McCabe holds more than 100 patents in various industries
(7) ^ "McCabe, Francis J." World Science Database.
(8) ^ "Thermal and Thermal Electric McCabe Resettable Fire Links" (PDF). PHL Links.
(9) ^ "McCabe Resettable Bi_Metal Fire Links". Brooks Equipment.
(10) ^ "PHL Links". PHL Links, Bay City, Michigan. For over 35 years, the McCabe® RESETTABLE Bi-metal Link has set the gold standard for both Thermal and Thermal Electric releasing devices in the fire and smoke protection industry.
(11) ^ "Innovation in Life Safety". Prefco.
(12) ^ "Report of Materials and Equipment Acceptance Division"(PDF). NYC Department of Buildings. November 2007.
(13) ^ "Prefco (USA) - Fire/Smoke Control System". Anyway Engineering.
(14) ^ "Air propulsion apparatus with windmill having multiple windmill blades to enhance performance". Justia Patents.
(15) ^ "United States Patent Application Publication" (PDF). Google Documents. Image of vehicle
(16) ^ Ed Kracz (May 26, 2008). "Power the wind". Philly Burbs. Archived from the original on September 24, 2008.
(17) ^ "Francis J. McCabe". Worldwide Branding Lifetime Achievement. October 15, 2013.External links
- McCabe on Lehigh Valley's PBS
- Report On A Gyroscope Workshop Set Up To Survey Mechanical Gyro Properties Of Forces, Torques, Motions; And Inertia Mechanics by Francis J. McCabe
- Natural Science Fundamentals In Orbits, Translations And Gyro Physics Francis J. McCabe (2005)
The works of a genius that discovered some of the most important and reality defying properties of physics, has been removed from the public mainstream consciousness. Looks like I was destined to keep alive the work of the many great people before me.
Inertial Propulsion and Inertial Lift are Facts of Life
Many inventors have developed “inertial propulsion” gyro-related machines and all of them appear to exploit the gyroscopes magical ability to exert torque perpendicular to the direction of forced precession. Some examples of this phenomena are shown below, but first an important note needs to be made about how forcing the precession in either direction affects gyroscopes.
Importance of Gyroscopes Forced Precession Causing Rising or Dropping
As the gyro magic cover-upper Veritasium stated, gyroscopes (magically) rise when precession is forced by drop when precession is countered. Note that as I stated earlier, Veritasium is not using a precise enough weigh scale to detect weight reading changes as the center of mass is rising. Veritasium also unnecessarily adds a counterweight which acts against precession and brings the center of mass closer to the fulcrum which together with the gyro setup and fulcrum being clamped prevent both inertial lift of the entire gyro setup and also minimizes any possible weight reading changes; i.e. Veritasium is insulting science as much as humanity in general.
This magical property of gyroscopes is essential in understanding inertial propulsion and inertial lift. And as stated earlier, even the weight of a gyroscope and slower spin speed can act as forced precession.
Combing this property of gyroscopes with the fact that they can exert massive torque over unity while still behaving massless in precession is the reason why many gyro inventions demonstrate inertial propulsion, or “action without reaction”.
MES Experiments Demonstrating Inertial Propulsion and Inertial Lift
My simple gyro ice experiments demonstrate both phenomena.
Note that just the weight of the gyroscope act can be considered as producing “forced precession” thus causing the gyroscope to rise upwards.
My weighted spinning tops and gyro experiments demonstrated inertial heavy and quick lifting!
Here it is evident that the heavy added weights are “forcing the precession” and thus causing magical inertial rising.
And my counterweight experiments show that gyros can exhibit inertial lift downwards!
Retrieved: 10 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/GEJlF
Here the counterweight acts to “force” the precession in the reverse direction and hence the gyroscope moves downwards.
Precession Direction and Gyro Spin Direction Tend to Line Up Opposite of Vertical Force
What’s very interesting is that the direction of precession is such the gyro spin direction wants to line up with it and in opposite direction to the vertical forced applied to it.
Thus, despite gravity and even a heavy weight added to it, a gyro can rise and align both spin and precession directions.
And likewise, a vertical upwards force causes a gyroscope spin and precession direction to line up but instead the gyro magically moves downwards.
This is another key factor in designing inertial propulsion systems, and in understanding inventions that claim to demonstrate this.
Eric Laithwaite Demonstration Gyro Inertial Lift Through Forced Precession
Recall from earlier in this video that Eric Laithwaite had demonstrated that forcing the precession can cause the gyro to spiral upwards, even generating lift of the entire gyro setup.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ya0y4
Note the difference in real science by Eric Laithwaite as compared with the fake science by Veritasium in which they clamped the gyroscope so that it wouldn’t demonstrate inertial lift at the fulcrum; hence lift the entire gyro setup upwards.
MES BOMBSHELL REALIZATION: Very Little Forced Precession is Required to Generate Lift
The earlier demonstrations of forced precession generating massive torque over unity even in the 1000X+ range also means that it is possible to generate lift of heavy gyroscopes with very little force during forced precession.
This realization comes from revisiting Eric Laithwaite’s demonstration of pushing a heavy 24 pound precessing wheel with just a finger, yet it effortlessly rises upwards even generating lift at the attached base.
Retrieved: 22 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Ksh3H
Torque over-unity and inertial lift propulsion was always hiding in plain sight!
Even Francis McCabe’s torque over-unity gyro demonstrates the incredibly low amounts of power input required, both in the electrical power to spin the gyro and the tiny amount of manual torque he applies to the lever as he force-precesses the gyro, to magically lift the gyro upwards in precession. Interestingly he states that hindering the precession demonstrates high torque reading as the lever becomes more rigid and the gyro drops magically downwards; as if it realized or regained its “mass”.
My gyro on a string experiments show that simply twirling a gyro opposite to the gyro spin direction is enough for it to rise magically upwards.
Likewise, spinning counter to the gyro spin direction further enhances gyro stability since the spins are aligned.
In fact, even just the simple and extremely weak unwinding of the string is enough to cause the gyro to tilt upwards slightly.
And again, if the unwinding is in the same direction as the gyro spin direction, further stability is once again enhanced, and in this case more clearly demonstrated.
This realization is also evident with Eric’s anti-gravity gyro as Eric is inputting very little forced precession motion with his hand and not only is the heavy gyro-wheel magically lifting upwards but it appears not to push downwards anywhere near what its stationary mass equivalent would be expected too.
This is the demonstration that officially opened the doors to the magical true science that awaits us, if only we have eyes to see and mind to comprehend.
The Inertial Propulsion Invention by Alex Jones that Thrust Eric Laithwaite into the Magical World of Gyroscopes
The original invention that flipped Eric Laithwaite’s view of the sacred Newtonian mechanical world was a simple gyro propulsion device, and by non-other than a person named Alex Jones.
MES Note: Not to be confused with the controlled opposition punching bag by both mainstream and alternative media, Alex Jones of “Info Wars”.
Recall the demonstration from the BBC “Heretics” documentary I showed earlier, but I have also included a YouTube video of the specific clip, that also includes the patent number.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ya0y4
Applying the spin directions and forced precession direction due to gravity on the tilted gyroscope, it becomes clear just what is happening.
Retrieved: 9 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/mm6yZ
The forced precession is in the direction opposite to the natural precession, which is to align with spin direction, thus the gyroscope is forced to move or “inertially lift” in the opposite direction.
This is essentially like my gyroscope counterweight dropping experiments but in this case the gyroscope is attached at a tilted angle and the forced counter precession is from the sideways tilt due to gravity.
LOL Yup, something like that! #UseYourImaginationPeople
The Famous Sandy Kidd Invention that Generates Lift Through Forced Precession
Another inventor that looked up to Eric Laithwaite was Sandy Kidd whom said that he started tinkering with gyros after watching Eric Laithwaite’s angular momentum and centrifugal force defying Christmas lectures. His invention involves two spinning wheels on opposite sides that can move inwards if the gyros lift upwards. The setup is such that forced precession is in the direction that the gyros spin directions would want to rise upwards. Thus, forced precession should cause the gyros to rise upwards, and even carrying the whole platform upwards a few inches!
Retrieved: 9 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/CVLvy
A better demonstration is shown in the part 3 video, as well as a letter from Sandy Kidd to Professor Simon Holland regarding his latest invention that includes strain gauges to measure the loss of “angular momentum” as the gyros speed up.
Retrieved: 13 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/A3pbs
Although this is a fascinating device, the fact that the center of mass only moves up a very small distance and I assume for only a short time period means that any possible weight measurements will be difficult to detect since there is only a small window of opportunity for detecting the weight changes due to a changing center of mass. Eric Laithwaite’s forced precession gyro inertial lift demonstration is a much more clear example of inertial lift as the gyro literally launches itself upwards relatively high!
Important Note on Sandy Kidd’s Invention
I have read online from Sandy Kidd that he mentioned he tested out different speeds and alternating speeds of the gyros and said these were maybe necessary to generate lift. But I also read, from him as well, that he could make the gyros lift even at the same uniform speeds. I couldn’t find much documentation on his invention, but if you can get in contact with him (or you are Sandy himself), please tell him to elaborate further on exactly the inner workings of his invention. Nonetheless, I believe my description of how it behaves and the similarities with the other experiments shown in this video provide an accurate view of how his invention generates lift.
YouTube Experimenter “woopyjump" Demonstrates Horizontal Inertial Propulsion
Recall that Laurent from the YouTube channel “woopyjump” and his debunking of the bogus fake physics of Cambridge University’s Emma Wilson regarding her coverup of gyroscopes precessing without “centrifugal force”. Laurent goes further and demonstrates that this lack of “centrifugal force” is also the key to generating horizontal inertial propulsion.
Just like in the previous inertial propulsion and inertial lift inventions, it appears that forced precession is the main cause of the inertial propulsion. Laurent takes it further by using the property of gyroscopes to precess with disappearing mass to make a semi-continuously inertially propelling (or paddling) gyro-setup; much like the gyro-rowing boat that Eric Laithwaite promised “Prince” Charles he would make. The setup includes two precessing gyros that precess in one direction with zero “angular momentum” (and thus no “reaction”) and then get forced to precess in the opposite direction thus causing semi-downwards / horizontal thrust.
Retrieved: 10 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/OXySp
On smooth bearings and a slightly tilted table, the gyros can still push forward a relatively heavy TV remote controller! Amazing stuff.
Disappearing Mass During Natural Precession and Reappearing During Forced Precession Causes “Action Without Reaction”?
In the above experiment, it also appears that as the gyro naturally precess “massless”, the forced precession “brings back” this disappearing/reappearing mass thus causing a horizontal thrust before disappearing (back into the “aether”?) as it wants to naturally precess again thus avoiding any “reaction”.
This is more evident in Laurent’s simple tilted gyroscope experiment where the precession just hits a barrier, thus propelling the whole platform forward but without “reaction” since the mass disappears again as it resets its natural precession.
Retrieved: 8 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/oArSR
The gyroscope is literally paddling a gyro boat on the shores of the aether!
Harvey Fiala’s Inertial Propulsion Device
Recall also the earlier invention by Harvey Fiala about a precessing gyroscope that propels forward when precession is hindered through a sloped upwards ramp.
Here is his patent for reference: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090183951A1/en
Tippy Top and the Phi Top Demonstrate Gyro Magical Rising While Changing Spin Axis
My earlier experiments with gyroscopes and spinning tops showcased their magical abilities of torque over-unity rising against the direction of the sum of gravity, magnetic forces, applied torque, counterweight torque, or combinations of these, and with zero loss in spin speed or extra input power required to spin the wheel or in the applied torque for forced precession. In other words, pure magic was demonstrated. But another branch of rotational mechanics that adds another piece to this magical puzzle involves spinning tops that can change spin axis, while still magically rising. Two particular tops are the Tippy Top (or tippe top) and the Phi Top.
Mainstream (Bogus) Review of Phi Tops and Tippy Tops
Let’s first review what another big bogus mainstream (fake) science 1.2 million+ subscribers YouTube channel, “Physics Girl” funded by the United States Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and even Lockheed Martin military arms research, weapons, and endless war dealer, has to say about these magical toys.
Retrieved: 13 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/8Ls6B
Essentially spinning an egg shape or even most oblong disk shaped objects will magically want to raise its center of mass.
This is the same for the Tippy Top:
Interestingly enough Nobel Prize winners Wolfgang Pauli and Niels Bohr were fascinated by the tippy
top.
When the “mathematics” of basic spinning tops is extremely complex, maybe it’s a sign that the underlying mainstream physics is just flat out wrong.
The usual bogus assumption of “conservation of energy” is brought up.
No, it doesn’t.
Another bogus assumption is brought up: “sliding friction” somehow provides magical rising upwards torque.
This image and randomly drawn arrow does not qualify as science.
PBS YouTube Channel “Physics Girl” Enters “Veritasium” and Cambridge University Level of Mockery of Physics
I had initially thought Physics Girl made a fairly straight forward observation that phi tops and tippy tops don’t rise on low friction environments such as ice.
But it wasn’t until almost a full year later that I realized that this test was one of the worst displays of bogus fake science ever conducted; or likely even worse and serve as a simple yet effective way of shifting people’s focus from real physics.
When zoomed in, the ice appears a bit wet and the tippy top on the side appears to be stuck to the ice.
This is not a “low friction” environment!
In fact, this is the opposite of “low friction” when dealing with metallic spinning tops, as will be demonstrated in the next section.
MES Real Science Low Friction Ice Experiments
Different materials behave differently under different conditions. For example, metallic materials “conduct” heat more readily than plastic or wooden materials. Hence, when metallic materials are placed on ice the difference in temperature from the ice and the metal will look to reach “equilibrium” much faster and thus metal melts the ice instantly; as shown in the following video.
Retrieved: 16 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/11yJR
Notice how difficult it is to remove the metal tops from the ice.
This is not a low friction environment!
For wooden or plastic tops, they don’t conduct heat well so they can maintain a temperature differential for a lot longer, and thus the ice doesn’t melt quickly.
For these materials, ice can then be classified as a “low friction” environment, assuming the ice itself is not wet.
MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Frozen Phi Top and Tippy Top Rise on Ice!
One way to ensure as little ice melting as possible is by simply freezing the aluminum tops beforehand. This lowers the temperature differential between the ice and the tops.
The frozen Phi Top rises easily, but interestingly comes back down right away.
Retrieved: 16 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/f2OpV
Was this so hard to do for the 1 million+ Subscribers "Physics Girl"?!
Likewise, the tippy top also rises easily on ice, but drops back down very quickly.
Retrieved: 16 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/A7tiR
Notice how easily the spinning top glides across the ice since there is extremely low friction!
MES Semi-BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Phi Tops and Tippy Tops Have Difficulty Maintaining Risen Position After Rising
As shown in the above experiments, in both cases the frozen phi top and tippy top fall back down very quickly after initially rising on ice. If the tops were instead spun in their risen position from the very start, they would actually spin much longer on the low friction ice surface. This indicates that as the tippy top and phi top rise upwards on ice, their spin speeds has lowered more than on relatively high friction surfaces.
As the tops rise, their spin axes are (magically) changing, and this change is in a direction such that friction on the surface can assist in increasing spin speed as the top is rolling. A good analogy for this is winter car tires that provide better traction on ice and snow.
This is better illustrated by viewing how the top behaves in super slow motion.
Tippy Top in Slow Motion Shows Amazing Spin Axis Change, Reverse Spinning, and Upwards Launch
This video has a better and slower slow motion camera than mine, so this video will do.
Retrieved: 24 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/0XmXj
The tippy top initially spins about its vertical spin axis, then quickly drops down towards spinning only horizontally (thus no longer spinning about its vertical spin axis), and then launches itself upwards and spins again on its now upside down vertical spin axis and in the relative reverse direction. Fascinating stuff!
MES Semi-BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Tippy Tops Require Adequate Friction to Maximize Spin Speed After Rising Upwards
From the above slow motion video clip, it is clear that the tippy top wants to (magically) raise its center of mass by lowering the stem and changing its spin axis in the process. But the surface prevents any further lowering of the stem as it makes contact with the stem. At this moment the mainly horizontal spinning tippy top starts rolling on the surface just before it launches itself upwards. This rolling requires some friction to ensure fast spin speed can be achieved before the top magically rises.
Thus, adequate friction is required for fast reverse spin speeds much like a ball rolling requires surface friction, otherwise it would just slide; while getting most of its reverse spinning speed from the actual non-friction related changing of the spin axis.
I believe this is the main reason why the tippy top and phi top rise upwards with slow final vertical spin speeds on low friction environments such as ice; and thus, fall back down quickly; after first magically rising and changing spin axis of course.
MES Note: Spencer ruins a great slow motion video by providing a mainstream (pseudo) science “explanation” that involves non-existent “angular momentum”, the (wrong) assumption of conservation of energy, and the usual magical non-existent “friction rising torque”.
Let the experiments speak for themselves instead of imposing unproven (and disproven) theory!
MES BOMBSHELL REALIZATION: Spinning Tops Tend to Rise Faster Than Similar Precessing Gyroscopes Because Rolling Generates Forced Forward Precession!
Notice how the tippy top jumps upwards very chaotically after the stems makes contact with the surface and starts to roll in the direction of precession. This forces the precession and thus magically generates lift as my earlier gyroscope demonstrations showcased.
At this stage, a tippy top is just a spinning top!
This is also the same as for Eric Laithwaite’s rolling forced precession gyroscope that shook his entire table setup!
Upside down version of a tippy top?
Thus, rolling is just another method of forced precession and similar to adding weight or directly forcing the precession either through a motor or manually twisting it as in Eric Laithwaite’s lift generation demonstration.
MES BOMBSHELL POTENTIAL DISCOVERY: Is a Non-Rolling Spinning Top Just a Gyroscope?
On a purely frictionless surface where no rolling would occur, would a spinning top behave the exact same as a similarly designed gyroscope?
Is a non-rolling spinning top just a gyroscope?
I think this might be the case; unless of course there are some aetheric field effects at the contact point between the surface and the spinning top stem that may be yet to be noticed.
Although I wouldn’t state definitively if this is the case, my experiment of a gyroscope on ice such that the outer casing and stem are spinning rapidly yet still rising in similar fashion had the casing not been spinning suggests that indeed a frictionless spinning top is a just a precessing gyroscope.
Retrieved: 17 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/kleDe
Tippy Top and Phi Top Experiments with a Magnetic Stirrer
The magnetic stirrer set up that I have involves spinning two reverse polarity magnets. The benefit of a magnetic stirrer is it allows for more controlled stationary spinning environments.
Retrieved: 15 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/1iwCl
Frozen Tippy Top on Ice Drops its Stem at Low Spin Speeds on Magnetic Stirrer
When a magnet moves or spins near aluminum metal, even though aluminum is not very magnetic, the magnetic field can magic-netically cause the aluminum to move or rotate. This effect is often deferred to some guy named “Lenz” and his so called “Law”.
The same frozen tippy top from my earlier experiments demonstrate that even at low controlled spin speeds with very little horizontal movements, the tippy top stem drops when on ice and using a magnetic stirrer to spin it.
Retrieved: 13 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/ZfSGu
The tippy top is not able to flip over though as the spin speed is not able to get high enough before the stem makes contact with the ice surface, thus not able to generate the upwards launch needed to complete the flip. Nonetheless, this is further proof that “friction” is not why tippy tops want to magically increase their center of mass.
Amazing Phi Top Rising Demonstration on Magnetic Stirrer!
I had tried many experiments to get a controlled ice environment for the phi top on the magnetic stirrer, but it was very difficult to achieve this both because the phi top tends to move in a big precession circle relative to the tippy top. Thus, it was very difficult to keep the phi top in the center of the spinning magnets and keep it there long enough for the speed to built up high enough. You can see some of these struggles in my DRAFT #MESExperiments https://mes.fm/experiment-draft.
But a Phi Top spinning and rising on a smooth glass surface placed upon a magnetic stirrer is an astonishing sight to behold!
Retrieved: 16 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/oJTTf
Absolutely magical rising!
“Physics Girl” Could’ve Saved Me Time by Just Using Wooden or Plastic Tops on Ice
While it was a great learning experience experimenting with different materials, temperatures, and spinning techniques, I initially did so simply to show that “Physics Girl” needs to change her YouTube channel name to “Fake-Physics Girl”. Had she just tested out simple wooden or plastic tippy tops and phi tops, she would realize that even on ice they magically rise upwards; hence throwing a wrench in her bogus “friction” theory that somehow causes a magical uniform upwards rising torque each and every spin.
Retrieved: 16 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/2udgU
Retrieved: 16 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/CGDAP
Fascinating stuff!
The Great Owen Liang Also Sees Past the Bogus “Friction” Excuse for Tippy Tops and Phi Tops
Let’s see what the great Owen Liang has to say about how phi tops and tippy tops rise magically upwards.
https://inverselaw.000webhostapp.com/video02.html
Retrieved: 10 May 2018
Archive: Not Available
Yup, excellent analysis as always from the great Owen Liang!
The Gyrocompass is the Embodiment of the Magical Properties of Gyroscopes
While my gyroscope and spinning top demonstrations showcased over-unity magical inertial lifting, propulsion, auto-adjusting balancing, and manipulating or “transferring” of mass, one concept that had been noticed throughout is that spin and precession direction tend to align. This is the essential property of gyroscopes behind one of its current applications as a “gyrocompass” or “gyro-compass”.
Gyroscope Spin and Precession Direction Tend to Align and Opposite of Vertical Force
Before I go over the gyrocompass, first recall that I had discussed this briefly in the earlier section on inertial lift and propulsion. Let’s take a look at this again for more experiments.
Spin and precession directions align against the added weight or force.
If the applied force is upwards, then precession is reversed while the gyro moves downwards to still align spin and precession directions.
Even Owen Liang’s Gyro Space Top demonstrates the same property of aligning spin and precession directions.
Even if the applied force is asymmetric, the top will move away from it to align against the “vector sum” of the net forces, while still aligning precession and spin directions.
MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Gyroscopes with a Tilted Stem Will Rise Until Spin and Precession Directions are Aligned
This is the case even if the gyroscope stem was at a tilted position. It will rise upwards only to where the spin and precession directions align.
Retrieved: 20 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/B4uCD
MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY: Gyroscopes with a Tilted Stem Hung by a String Can Rise from Negative Angles
In most of my gyroscope and spinning top experiments, I demonstrated that at an angle above the horizontal gyroscopes can rise upwards. But this is in fact true even for negative angles as long as the gyroscope is positioned such that spin and precession directions will align if the gyroscope were to rise.
Retrieved: 20 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/DCeZm
Fascinating stuff!
Tippy Tops and Phi Tops Demonstrate Stable Spin and Precession Alignment at Higher Centers of Mass
In the earlier section, I showed that tippy tops and phi tops can rise upwards while changing their spin axis, and in the case of the tippy top, even if it were to completely flip upside down. Furthermore, they also exhibit “preferred” spin and precession alignments and towards a higher center of mass.
In both cases, spin and precession directions are not stable at fast spin speeds and low centers of mass. This is demonstrated by the tops rising fully upwards so that the center of mass is highest.
This is some absolutely fascinating rotational magic!
The Amazing and Underappreciated Gyrocompass
A gyrocompass is just a gyroscope that is forced to precess as the Earth rotates, thus (magically) aligning with Earth’s rotation and pointing North or South depending on the initial setup. To induce precession, several methods include adding weights or friction to the free gyroscope to hinder its preferred property of maintaining orientation during any movement.
MES Gimbaled Gyroscope Demonstrates the Mechanism of a Gyrocompass
The idea behind a gyrocompass is demonstrated in the following “gimbaled” gyroscope which precesses by tilting upwards or downwards whenever force is applied to turn the gimbaled setup; and again, the gyro spin directions want to line up with the applied global spin direction.
Retrieved: 18 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/abVpb
Turning the gimbals can even make the gyroscope do a complete 180 degree tilt to become upside down, just so the gyro spin direction aligns with the direction that the casing is being spun. During this tilting, or induced precession, there is significant resistance or inertia to turning.
This is a “stable” orientation in that rotating the casing in the direction of the gyro spin direction has no resistance to change, even when spun very fast.
Conversely, when rotating the casing in the opposite direction of the gyro spin direction, it is still possible to do so without inducing precession but only when the rotor is perfectly horizontal. This orientation is “unstable” in that any deviation from the perfectly horizontal orientation, which becomes very likely at higher turning speeds, can induce precession and thus the gyro wants to (magically) flip upside down in precession.
This is a particularly interesting feature of the gyrocompass which I will discuss further below.
Note also that when carrying the base and moving it around, the gyroscope wants to continue pointing in its initial position:
Likewise, the reverse is the case and applying a vertical force downwards will make the gyroscope precess in the direction that would align with spin direction.
Note that pushing downwards is “dynamic” in that it keeps changing relative to the tilt of the gyroscope so once the gyroscope flips over, a downwards applied force will cause the precession to reverse but nonetheless still want to align with spin direction.
Note the change in precession direction as the gyroscope flips over. Fascinating stuff!
A Gyrocompass is Just a Gyroscope that is Forced to Precess with Earth’s Rotation
Thus, a Gyrocompass is essentially a gyroscope that is forced to precess by adding a torque to it, such as my gimbal restricted movement setup, and then the gyro magically aligns spin direction with the global spin or torque direction, including the rotation of the Earth!
Amazing!
Super Precise and Durable Gyrocompasses are Used in Many Ships at Sea
Ships and planes use very precise near zero (rotational) frictionless gyrocompasses to determine True North; which is Earth’s tilt axis as opposed to the Magnetic Axis. Here are some good videos on the gyrocompasses used in WW2.
Retrieved: 19 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/4rStS
This gyrocompass uses “compensator weights” to always keep the gyroscope perpendicular with gravity, as opposed to my gimbal setup that restricts movement of the gyroscope forcing it to precess when torque is applied. Thus, the gyro rotor precesses such that it wants to align with Earth’s rotation.
Note the “Phantom Element” which consists of a ring and an electronic turning mechanism that follows the turning of the gyro to keep the wire suspension from twisting up; which as my string experiments showed that even the slightest unwinding can generate induced (over-unity) torque to the gyro.
The above video doesn’t properly explain this, but the “compensator weights” are attached such that if the gyroscope tilts relative to the Earth, it has to lift the weights as well. This causes a state of “induced torque” and hence induced or forced precession as the Earth rotates and the compensator weights counteract the relative tilting of the gyroscope. And as with all induced torque, gyros want to align spin with precession direction. This is better demonstrated in the following (corrected) image.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-gyrocompass-84972014.html
Retrieved: 17 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/GMidM
I believe this image has the direction of precession in the wrong direction since the gyrocompass wants to align spin and precession direction, and not counter it.
The above WW2 wire suspended gyrocompass is installed in an extremely robust outer chamber that is capable of withstanding even Hurricane conditions!
Retrieved: 18 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/PHktx
Absolutely Amazing! But sad to see that “War” aka Sanctioned Insanity is the driving force to behind some of the most amazing engineering feats.
Francis McCabe Demonstrates First Ever Mechanical Demonstration of “Inertia”
The late great Francis McCabe thought the Earth, atoms, and essentially all things function as gyroscopes; and the following demonstration is a great illustration that he may be right!
Gyroscopes want to align with overall or global or forced precession direction. But during the aligning they actively resist applied forces until they are fully in line. Francis demonstrates this by having multiple gyroscopes initially freely spinning, analogous to “atoms”, but when the torque is applied all the gyroscopes (or atoms) magically align with the torque direction; after which they stop resisting and spin freely. Essentially, he may have demonstrated the first ever mechanical or macro scale demonstration of what “inertia” may actually be.
Retrieved: 3 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/Ia1dM
Notice how the gyroscopes resist the turning crank torque until they align with it and then move smoothly along.
We may literally be looking at the actual mechanism for the “innate resistance to change” known as inertia!
Balls Inside a Spinning Sphere Align with the Spin Direction
Francis’ mechanical demonstration of what “inertia” may very well be is very similar to an even simpler experiment. The following is just a toy involving a sphere with many little balls inside. Spinning the sphere makes all the balls pushed to the outside and spin in a ring in line with the direction that the sphere is spinning.
Retrieved: 23 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/OojqK
Notice how spinning turns the incoherent pile of balls into a coherent spinning disk due to the “centrifugal force”.
Fascinating!
This toy provides a major clue regarding the fundamental mechanism regarding “inertia”.
MES Preliminary Definition of “Inertia” Sheds Light on Its Mystery
From the entirety of the experiments and findings in this report, I believe the following preliminary definition of the phenomenon of inertia is a good starting point to help in understanding this mystery.
Preliminary Definition: Inertia is the interaction between coherent and incoherent processes and manifested as resistance.
Thus, in the case of Francis McCabe’s gyro inertia demonstration, the resistance experienced from the individual gyros to the external applied torque is coming from the individual gyros themselves that spin in any direction that is incoherent from the coherent applied torque. The more incoherency the more coherent force is required, and hence greater “inertia” or resistance is experienced.
This is the same for a car moving at a constant velocity; it requires extra energy to move it to a faster velocity but very little extra energy to maintain that higher speed.
Coherency in force or motion requires very little energy to maintain its current state.
This view of inertia may be key to understanding how a gyroscope can perform such baffling feats of strength since it is a good example of a highly coherent physical system which turns in a uniform and fast speed.
Are there some field effects occurring between coherent gyroscopic motion, gravity, and/or magnetism?
This image of the gyro in its risen state seems eerily plausible as to the true state of nature…
Quick Overview of Mainstream “Explanations” Regarding Gyroscopes and Objects in Rotation
I was originally going through a more “formal” mathematical elaboration on mainstream mechanical and rotational physics, but I believe it is best to postpone that to another video; if I even feel it is necessary to cover it at all. After all, mainstream physics can’t even explain how a basic spinning top rises.
Here is instead a quick rundown of big mainstream scientists either arrogantly making bogus fake assumptions regarding rotational physics or admitting how baffling it is.
Big Mainstream Science YouTube Channels Can’t Get Basic Rotational Physics Correct
Just because a YouTube channel presents itself as an authority on science or has a big audience, it is important to always think for yourself or else get lost in the crowd.
14+ Million Subscribers “Vsauce” Doesn’t Know Gyroscopes Can Rise Upwards
This video has more views than my entire channel as of today; I guess popularity doesn’t necessarily mean accurate physics.
Retrieved: 18 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/wtP7o
270+ Thousand Subscribers Steve Mould Doesn’t Know Gyroscopes Don’t Lose Spin Speed from Twisting
Maybe if Shell-sponsored Steve stares at the gyroscope long enough he will realize its spin speed is not affected from his twisting.
Retrieved: 18 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/hQOuA
This is essentially the mainstream science narrative of all things: Assume “conservation of energy” and/or “friction” yet provide no concrete proof for either, nor define them in any concrete or testable terms.
455+ Thousand Subscribers “standupmaths” is Baffled by the Tippy Top
Well, I can’t blame him for not understanding clearly fake mainstream physics regarding tippy tops.
Retrieved: 26 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/w2Fk8
John Perry’s 1890 Book on Spinning Tops Understood Hurrying Precession is the Key to Rising of Spinning Tops
In the description of the above video, there is some screen shots to John Perry’s 1890 book that explains that a spinning top’s rolling acts to “hurry the precession” (i.e. forced precession) and thus (magically) rise.
Retrieved: 26 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/DplJP
Note the very interesting illustration regarding using your hand underneath a spinning top or precessing gyroscope to help the top rise backwards, presumably from hurrying the precession.
Supposedly this book is the earliest written illustration of a rising egg or Phi Top!
The full book is available in HTML and multiple other formats as well: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34268
199+ Thousand Subscribers Walter Lewin Cautions Students About the Most Difficult Concept of All: Gyroscopes and Torque
Even the famous Walter Lewin, whom is among one of the best (mainstream) professors, cautions students about the perilous road of (bogus fake overly difficult mainstream physics regarding) gyroscopes.
Retrieved: 17 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/Rfzqc
Once again, we are talking about the physics of a simple spinning object.
Retrieved: 17 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/nNrW7
5+ Million Subscribers “Veritasium” Can’t Find a Physicist That Can Explain a Spinning Disk
Does anyone know anything about anything?!
Retrieved: 27 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/XNKjJ
Note that the spinning disk is a similar toy to a tippy top in that it tends to spin heavy side up.
I stated “tends” because apparently it can go both ways when spun on ice.
Interestingly, he mentions that spinning the disk above the ground with the hole upwards still makes it want to move the hole downwards even in air?!
Mainstream Science Websites Baffled by Objects in Rotation
The world’s biggest mystery is a spinning top in your hand.
“American Scientist” Doesn’t Know how Gyroscopes Work or What Inertia Is
The illusion of “advanced” modern technology covers up the fact that mainstream physics doesn’t know how the most basic, and hence anything that follows, works.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+AmericanscientistOrg/posts/THAUYyjcCBX
Retrieved: 2 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/kp8nU
Centrifugal and centripetal force, rotation, inertia, and inertial vs non-inertial reference frames are at the heart of understanding the universe.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-forgotten-mystery-of-inertia
Retrieved: 2 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/vgbTJ
As always, the comment section provides the best insight:
The Most Difficult Concept in Physics: Spinning Tops
Retrieved: 16 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/98m38
A famous Harvard physics professor (Ed Purcell maybe?) said that undergraduate physics students come in expecting that the hardest thing they'll have to learn will be either relativity or quantum mechanics. Actually, those are the most novel topics (i.e., the ones involving notions that are the most surprising from our ordinary, common-sense perspective). The hardest thing that an undergraduate physics students must learn is the classical dynamics of spinning tops (also called "rigid bodies" in this context).
…
The great theoretical physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), discoverer of the laws of electrodynamics, wrote, "To those who study the progress of exact science, the common spinning-top is a symbol of the labours and the perplexities of men."
MES Quote: The perplexities of men cover up the simplicity of spinning top.
…
Most physicists are content to compute observable quantities, leaving the interpretation to the philosophers, an attitude captured in a famous dictum often wrongly attributed to Richard Feynman, to "shut up and calculate;" see N. D. Mermin, "Could Feynman have said this?", Physics Today 57, 10 (2004).
Historical “Scientists” Baffled at Simple Tops
Even “Noble” prize winners are baffled by the basic mechanics of rotation.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5689842/why-the-humble-tippe-top-baffled-physicists-and-statesmen
Retrieved: 16 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/1VyMd
This question absorbed several brilliant and famous minds. Niels Bohr, who helped figure out the structure of the atom, and Wolfgang Pauli, best known for the Pauli Exclusion Principle, both famously studied the tippe top to figure out what made it flip itself.
(Pictured Left: Wolfgang Pauli and Niels Bohr doing what Nobel Prize winners do with their spare time.)
Bicycles Are Still a Mystery to Mainstream Science
You can’t make this stuff up, folks.
http://bicycle.tudelft.nl/schwab/Bicycle/
Retrieved: 19 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/0WffP
“Even now, after we’ve been building them for 100 years, it’s very difficult to understand just why a bicycle works - it’s even difficult to formulate it as a mathematical problem.” — Freeman Dyson interviewed by Stewart Brand in Wired News, February 1998.
Does anyone know anything?!
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/gonzalez/Teaching/Phys7221/vol59no9p51_56.pdf
Retrieved: 18 March 2019
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190318183524/http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/gonzalez/Teaching/Phys7221/vol59no9p51_56.pdf
https://www.fastcompany.com/3062239/the-bicycle-is-still-a-scientific-mystery-heres-why
Retrieved: 17 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/vPJe7
A bicycle is surprisingly stable for an upright, two-wheeled vehicle that needs to be propped against a wall when it’s not moving. But perhaps a bigger surprise is that no consensus exists on why the bike is as stable as it is. For such a simple design, which almost anyone can understand, this seems crazy. After all, we live in a world of self-driving cars and safe passenger airplanes. Surely the bike can’t still hold any physics or engineering mysteries?
At the heart of the puzzle is something we’ve all observed. If you push a riderless bicycle, it balances itself, steering automatically to correct for any wobbles, until it slows down and finally falls flat on its side.
…
So, just how does a bike stay up by itself? It’s still a mystery…
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-bicycle-problem-that-nearly-broke-mathematics/
Retrieved: 17 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/0e9PX
…
“Everybody knows how to ride a bike, but nobody knows how we ride bikes,” says Mont Hubbard, an engineer who studies sports mechanics at the University of California, Davis.
…
The link between leaning and steering gives rise to the bicycle's most curious feature: the way that it can balance while coasting on its own. Give a riderless bike a shove and it may wend and wobble, but it will usually recover its forward trajectory.
…
He applied the team's insights about bicycles to a new arena: robots. If bicycles could demonstrate such elegant stability without a control system, he reasoned, it might be possible to design a stripped-down walking machine that achieves the same thing.
…
It also introduced a puzzle: the steering torque required was two or three times that predicted by the Whipple bicycle model. This might have been caused by friction and flexing of the tyres, which are not part of the model, but no one is certain. For further tests, Moore and his colleagues have built a robotic bike that can balance itself. “Once you have a robot bicycle, you can do a lot of crazy experiments without having to put a human in danger,” he says. (One of his earlier handling experiments had him regaining his balance after a sideways blow from a wooden stick.) Unlike many other riderless-bike robots, it does not use internal gyroscopes to stay upright, but depends on steering alone. Moore has shipped it to Schwab for further study.
…
Self-riding robot bikes without any internal gyroscopes or electronic sensors?! Sounds a lot like Owen Liang’s self-balancing spinning top robot! And is that an allusion to torque over-unity?!
SUMMARY OF MY SELF-APPOINTED PHD
Overview and Summary of Findings and Topics Covered
The making of this video was the most intense, physically, and mentally consuming video I have ever made, or ever will plan to make. I initially went along trying to understand the mainstream physics of gyroscopes, but more importantly to try to understand why the entire world was clueless as to a gyroscope precessing with zero angular momentum or centripetal force, thus effectively behaving massless. But then I realized that the biggest mystery in science wasn’t “quantum mechanics”, “general relativity”, or even “gravity”, but quite simply the basic question:
How does a spinning top rise?
Yes, a mere lump of spinning mass. This is the question everyone needs to focus in on, and which I look to answer fully in later videos.
Here is a summary of the adventure that was this video:
Introduction and Relevant Links
- This video is my self-appointed PhD to go along with my Bachelor of Applied Science (BASc) degree in Civil Engineering and Master of Applied Science (MASc) degree in Mining Engineering from the University of British Columbia (UBC).
- Top Secret Life Hack: Listen to videos at x2000 speed by using browser extensions, Hooktube.com, or modifying source code.
- MES Browser Extension Recommendation: https://mes.fm/videospeed-extension
- Links to relevant video series:
Important Notes on Physics
- MES Disclaimer: Any reference I make to “mainstream” sources such as Wikipedia regarding any and all topics are merely to build mainstream context.
- “Explanations” are merely approximations and shouldn’t be viewed as the actual cause.
- MES Axiom: All “explanations” are just approximations to exact natural phenomena.
- Make sure to entertain different interpretations of the same physical phenomena.
- Does a ball bounce to a lower energy state?
- Does the total distance travelled and hence energy of a ball bouncing exceed the input energy?
- Think outside the box.
- Is a match-stick burning itself to create the flame?
- Is the match-stick acting as an antenna to the Aether?
- Think for yourself!
Clearing Eric Laithwaite’s Name from Slander and Ignorance
- The level of slander, misinformation, and flat out lies towards Eric Laithwaite is astounding and needs clearing up; which I have taken upon myself to do so.
- To some degree, I have even cleared up Eric’s own doubts regarding his conviction of the magic of gyroscopes.
- Imperial College Obituary of Eric Laithwaite leaves out what he is most known for: gyroscopes
- UK “Royal” Family “Prince” Charles was a big fan of Eric’s gyros
- Eric claims to be able to lift a 50-pound spinning wheel with a finger!
- Eric initially wanted to “update” Newton’s “Laws”
- Eric made a promise to “Prince” Charles that he would be the first to know when Eric develops a rowing boat where the paddles don’t touch the water; i.e. gyros paddling on the shores of the aether.
- Photograph showing Eric Laithwaite carrying a precessing gyroscope with his finger.
- The gyro appears to be 24 pounds.
- Former rocket scientist for NASA, Harvey Fiala, mentions that Eric lifted a 40 lb gyro with his small finger.
- Harvey also has a patent for a gyroscopic inertia propulsion device which creates forward reactionless motion through hindering precession via a slanted ramp.
Review of Veritasium’s Disgraceful Coverup of Eric Laithwaite’s Anti-Gravity Wheel
- Huge 5 million+ subscribers Mainstream Science YouTube Channel Veritasium disgracefully coverups up Eric’s Anti-Gravity wheel.
- Eric can’t lift a 40-pound wheel with two hands but can lift it like a feather when it is spinning.
- Veritasium gas-lights the public by holding the wheel horizontally; and making a mockery of physics in the process.
- Veritasium suggests Eric is a conman and a liar that uses a “trick” to lift a spinning wheel but which he couldn’t lift it when it wasn’t spinning.
- My magical gyro rising experiments show that gyros can rise without any “tricks” and all on their own.
- Gyroscopes can also rise “downwards” when a counterweight is added that should make it rise upwards instead. #GyroUpsideDownWorld
- Veritasium con the public by lying and nonsensically comparing the anti-gravity wheel to holding the wheel at a far distance from the center of mass; all while cutting out the part of Eric’s video that shows him struggle to lift the unspun gyro.
- Veritasium further suggests that Eric is lying about the gyroscope feeling like it is as light as a feather.
- Veritasium also cuts out the part where Eric states the gyro wheel is displaying zero centrifugal force as it is not pulling his arm outwards.
- Veritasium cunningly uses a gimbled gyroscope with a counterweight instead of making an accurate comparison with the anti-gravity wheel.
- Forced precession causes gyros to rise.
- Hindered precession causes gyros to drop.
- Veritasium make the bogus claim that the weight doesn’t change when the center of mass changes.
- Veritasium’s gimbaled gyroscope has a counterweight and low resolution weigh scale so the center of mass and weight hardly changes as the gyroscope rises.
- MES POST FILMING REALIZATION: After recording my video and reviewing it, I realized that even in Veritasium’s coverup video they demonstrate two segments in which the weight scale reading changes as force precession is applied. Why is Veritasium not pointing this out or providing any context regarding spin speed, amount of force applied, center of location, etc., instead of cherry-picking and making bogus non-sensical statements? And why are they using a gimbal setup that restricts gyro movement at the fulcrum?
- What are these clowns hiding?
- MES POST FILMING REALIZATION: After recording my video and reviewing it, I realized that even in Veritasium’s coverup video they demonstrate two segments in which the weight scale reading changes as force precession is applied. Why is Veritasium not pointing this out or providing any context regarding spin speed, amount of force applied, center of location, etc., instead of cherry-picking and making bogus non-sensical statements? And why are they using a gimbal setup that restricts gyro movement at the fulcrum?
- Increasing the center of mass such as jumping or standing up straight causes the weight to change as force is required to act against the ground which creates a reactionary force on the object or person.
- Gyroscopes increasing center of mass with no weight change is reactionless inertial propulsion.
- Veritasium’s gimbaled gyroscope is also fixed from vertically moving at the fulcrum which hides the fact that forced precession generates lift as well as “simply” rising.
- Veritasium’s gimbaled gyroscope has a counterweight and low resolution weigh scale so the center of mass and weight hardly changes as the gyroscope rises.
- My earlier comments on Veritasium’s YouTube channel showed my previous angry mindset towards clueless clowns such as Veritasium and which has shifted to understanding the psychology of both the real science cover-upper and the viewer that believes in such fake nonsense spewed by the likes of authority figures such as Veritasium.
- Note that the first ever “Royal” Institution Televised Christmas Lecture by none other than Eric Laithwaite in 1966 is missing so please message me at contact@mes.fm if you happen to find a copy!
Mainstream Wikipedia Narrative and Slander of Eric Laithwaite
- Eric Roberts Laithwaite: Lived from 14 June 1921 to 27 November 1997.
- Famous Electrical Engineer known for his work on the linear induction motor and maglev (magnetic levitation) rail system.
- Alex Jones, not to be confused with the “Infowars” disinfo agent, demonstrated reactionless inertial gyro propulsion to Eric.
- Wikipedia makes the bogus out-of-context claim that Eric’s later “acceptance” of “Newtonian mechanics” was a retraction of his previous findings. Nothing is further from the truth.
- Eric believed that moths communicate via electromagnetic waves?? Also, there might be 3 types of magnetism??
Eric Laithwaite’s Later “Mass Transfer” Theory and Unconventional Interpretation of Newtonian Mechanics
- Eric Laithwaite’s demonstrations that gyroscope can precess with zero angular momentum or centrifugal force are irrefutable and require conventional physics to be re-written.
- In later years, Eric developed a theory of “Mass Transfer” that can explain gyroscope’s mainstream physics defying properties through the Newtonian “Conservation of Momentum” principle.
- I first heard of his theory after watching BBC’s 1994 “Heretics” documentary on Eric’s Gyros.
- Note that the video is not available on YouTube due to the (tax-payer funded) BBC copyright but is available on Dailymotion.
- The documentary includes a video of Eric lifting a 50 pound gyro-wheel; 10 pounds heavier than his viral video demonstration.
- Eric demonstrates a simple experiment of forced precession generating inertial lift.
- I first heard of his theory after watching BBC’s 1994 “Heretics” documentary on Eric’s Gyros.
- Eric demonstrates “mass transfer” by an overly complicated set up of two gyroscope precessing in tandem when hung by a string in which the center of mass moves with much less reaction than would be expected by conventional Newtonian “action/reaction” physics.
- Essentially Eric was trying to create a low friction environment.
- A simpler setup that demonstrates this is my ice experiments by which gyroscopes precess without centrifugal/centripetal force and while rising magically upwards.
- Eric’s paper on mass transfer suggests a “Universal Equation” for unifying gyroscopic spin speed and precession with the resulting generated torque.
- Torque = spin angular momentum * precessional angular velocity.
- Note that this formula doesn’t account for my experiments that show gyroscopes magically rising on their own when precessional or rotational friction is minimized.
- Note also that this formula doesn’t account for Francis McCabe’s 1000X+ torque over-unity capabilities of gyroscopes.
- Nonetheless, Eric is right in that it appears that the very precession of a gyroscope can generate upwards torque and depends on its spinning speed and mass.
- Torque = spin angular momentum * precessional angular velocity.
- Mass Transfer: Eric demonstrated that two gyros forced to precesses via a spring in the middle of them cause the center of mass to propel forward.
- Eric used this new concept and working with “momentum” instead of “forces”, to fit in with his own interpretation of Newtonian Mechanics.
- Mass Transfer is NOT accepted or even known to be possible in conventional Newtonian Mechanics.
- Any suggestion that Eric retracted his unconventional views on gyroscopes is wholly wrong, and/or intentionally misleading.
- YouTuber “woopyjump” demonstrates Eric’s Mass Transfer concept through a simple 2-gyroscope setup on low friction bearings, at a slight uphill, and able to push a relatively heavy TV remote control forward.
- Gyroscopes have ALWAYS demonstrated Mass Transfer right before our eyes:
- A precessing gyroscope on your finger easily demonstrates the gyroscope initially precessing as if it has no mass but with the precession becoming “heavier” as it loses spin speed, and precession speed increases.
- My Gyroscope on Ice Experiments clearly demonstrate this “inertial propulsion”, and as the gyro magically rises with zero centripetal force.
Cambridge University Insult to Science and Blatant Coverup of Eric’s Reality Defying Gyroscope Common Sense Findings
- Emma Wilson takes on the role of gyroscope magic cover-upper as part of her 2007 Master’s in Engineering (Meng) Thesis at Cambridge University.
- Note that I couldn’t find her thesis online, but if you have access to it please let me know!
- Emma tries to “refute” the irrefutable: gyroscopes precess with zero centripetal force.
- Eric’s simple experiment involved a 300 gram gyroscope precessing on a 1 gram pedestal.
- This is equivalent to a 3000 pound spinning car precessing about a 10 pound step ladder.
- Emma’s “argument” is based on a bogus 1 second video-clip of a dissimilar gyroscope setup on an air-table; with many non-spinning parts, and no context provided.
- The video shows small horizontal movements.
- The video also demonstrates either how little she knows about physics or how stupid she thinks her audience is.
- How this person has any functional role in society is beyond me.
- Disgraceful is an understatement.
- Emma illustrates her 1-second video clip with fictional cartoons that have no basis in reality.
- Emma fails to account for spin speed, total non-spinning mass of her gyroscope setup, and relative distance from the fulcrum axis of both spinning vs non-spinning mass.
- These factors can mask the gyroscope’s magical ability to lose its angular momentum and centripetal force by still moving the base on a frictionless surface.
- My ice experiments demonstrate the gyroscopes can precess with zero or varying centripetal force, all while magically rising on an ice cube.
- My gyroscope ice experiments are what real science looks like.
- YouTubers “woopyjump” and “jogglevision” both debunk Emma’s bogus fake science.
- The famous precessing bicycle experiment has always demonstrated zero centripetal force right before our eyes.
- Even a precessing gyroscope balancing on one’s finger demonstrates this.
- Note that adding weight to the bike wheel makes it precess faster and with a larger precession circle; i.e. the non-spinning mass gets pushed outwards since it exhibits “angular momentum” or centripetal/centrifugal force as opposed to the spinning mass that behaves “massless”.
- Conventional concept of “spin angular momentum” does not account for auto-adjusting, auto-balancing, and auto-rising of spinning wheels, tops, and gyroscopes.
- Emma leaves out Eric’s other irrefutable experiment of a gyroscope precessing onto a stick with zero angular momentum.
- MES Logical Speculation: A precessing large-scale spinning gyro-car can be easily stopped by just standing in front of its precession.
Mainstream Wikipedia Physics of Spinning Tops and Gyroscopes
- A spinning top remains balanced due to its “rotational inertia”.
- Very little discussion in regard to how spinning tops rise upwards.
- Wikipedia briefly mentions that “interaction with the surface” forces the top to “wobble” upwards.
- Wikipedia also makes a misleading claim that “less friction increases rising time of a spinning top”.
- This is not always the case, as my gyro experiments demonstrate low rotational friction and fast precession speed are the main ingredients to making gyros rise fast; as well as applying non-spinning weight to the gyros or spinning tops can make them rise faster.
- Wikipedia adds a bogus cartoon of a precessing gyroscope in circular motion instead of magically rising upwards.
- Has the world gone mad?
- Does anyone know that a gyroscope magically rises upwards??
Mainstream Physics of the Mystery of Inertia
- Inertia is the resistance of a physical object to any change in its current state of motion.
- States of motion include speed, direction, or state of rest.
- Isaac Newton first law states that matter has an innate force which preserves its current state, thus resisting any acceleration.
- Newton later defined “inertia” as the “the innate force possessed by an object which resists changes in motion”.
- Thus, Newton defined “inertia” as the cause of the phenomenon instead of the phenomena itself.
- In “classical” mainstream physics today, “inertia” is still defined as the phenomenon itself instead of any actual mechanism, and Wikipedia states that there may never be a mechanism we can “know”.
- What?! Literally the “basic” physics of a simple stationary coffee cup is not understood as to why it is stationary.
- Rotational Inertia is the property that a rotating object wants to maintain its state of uniform rotational motion unless an external torque is applied.
- This is called “conservation of angular momentum”.
- A gyroscope has rotational inertia to resist any change in its axis of rotation.
- What about gyros magically rising? Has anyone actually played with a gyroscope?
- The definition of rotational inertia is used to “explain” how a spinning top remains upright is circular reasoning.
- “A spinning top stays upright because it stays upright”.
- Bruce Yeany’s brilliant illustrations of mainstream rotational mechanics
- Momentum is the numerical “amount of inertia” and is defined as the mass*velocity. (What is mass?)
- Pushing a water bottle forward will move the water to the base as the bottle exerts force on it via its increasing forward momentum.
- Rotating a tray via rope while a water bottle placed on it will provide an inwards acceleration pointing towards the center of rotation.
- This keeps the bottle pressed against the tray with the water itself level.
- The inwards force is defined as Centripetal Force.
- This force is analogous to pushing the water bottle forward.
- Letting go of the rope will cause the bottle and tray to fly at a tangent to the rotational circle.- Inertial vs Non-Inertial Reference Frames
- Inertial reference frames involve no acceleration
- Inertial vs Non-Inertial Reference Frames
- At rest or constant velocity.
- No forces acting on the frame.
- An accelerometer will not detect any acceleration of an object at rest.
- Non-inertial reference frames undergo acceleration. - An example is a rotating frame of reference.
- “Laws of physics vary”, thus fake forces are added. #FakePhysics
- Centripetal vs Centrifugal Forces Depend on Frame of Reference
- In a stationary inertial reference, the centripetal force acts to accelerate a rotating object inwards, thus acting on the object’s forward “inertia”.
- In a rotating non-inertial reference frame, the centrifugal force is the “fictitious” outwards force; such as the sensation of a driver being pushed outwards during a sharp turn.
- Centrifuges are machines that rapidly spin objects to separate the contents based on density.
- The denser objects, usually liquids, get pushed outwards.
- Centripetal vs Centrifugal Forces Depend on Frame of Reference
- MES Recommendation: Get the amazing SpillNot for centripetal force balancing liquids magic!
- I use it every day to carry my morning coffee.
- “Angular Momentum” is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum
- Two types of angular momentum: spin and orbital (or precessional).
- “Objects in rotation want to remain in rotation”?
- Wikipedia makes no mention of gyroscopes magically rising upwards.
- PLOT TWIST: “Angular Momentum” may not actually exist since it is defined as a pseudovector that can be pseudo vector-summed up. #PseudoPhysics
Definition of “Inertia” is Basis for Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics
- Newton’s 3 “Laws” of Motion:
- (1) In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.
- (2) In an inertial frame of reference, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = m*a. (Assuming the mass m is constant).
- (3) When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
- Additional 4th Law: forces add up like vectors.
- Direct Translation of Newton’s 3 “Laws” of Motion:
- (1) Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.
- (2) Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impress’d; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impress’d.
- (3) Law III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
- Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation: Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe in the following relationship:
- F = Gm1m2 / r2
- Force = Gravitational ConstantMass 1Mass 2/(Distance Between Centers of Mass) 2
- Gravitational Constant (G) = 6.674x10−11 N·(m/kg)2
- Coulomb’s law for electrostatic force is very similar to the gravity formula.
- F = keq1q2 / r2
- Force = Coulomb’s constantCharge 1Charge 2/(Distance between charges)2
- Coulomb’s constant (ke) = 9×109 N⋅m2⋅C-2
- q1 and q2 are the positive or negative magnitude of charges.
- Electric charge is the sum of discreet charges of sub-atomic particles.
- Effectively, the number of “charged” sub-atomic particles creates attractive or repulsive force similar to the amount of “mass” creates gravitational attraction. - Albert Einstein’s Theories of Relativity
- The “theory of relativity” encompasses two interrelated theories: Special Relativity and General Relativity
- Special Relativity states that the “laws” of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames; and the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers.
- SR “supersedes” Newtonian mechanics but doesn’t account for gravitational effects.
- The Newtonian mechanics model is still used as a “good” approximation for when velocities are low relative to the “speed of light”.
- General Relativity unifies special relativity and Newton’s law of universal gravitation by defining gravity as the geometric property of space and time: spacetime.
- Objects behave the same in both a “gravitational field” and an accelerating enclosure.
- GR is used mainly in the galactic scale; i.e. planets, stars, galaxies, etc.
- GR doesn’t account for observations in Quantum Mechanics.
- The Equivalence Principle arises from GR and states that the “gravitational mass” and “inertial mass” are equivalent.
- Thus, objects in gravitational fields should behave the same as with those on an accelerating surface.
- A paradox of accelerated electromagnetic fields arises in that “electric charges” at rest on the surface of the Earth don’t “radiate” but an accelerated electric charge does.
- Some disagreement in the “scientific community” regarding if accelerated “charges” do actually “radiate” but it is “generally” accepted that they do.
- Attempts to reconcile this paradox with the equivalence principle involves careful articulation of reference frames, and speculation on “inaccessible” regions of space time relative to different reference frames.
- More questions as to what charges, particles, fields, reference frame “accountability”, and overall “reality” really are, are raised than “answered” by mainstream physics.
- Theory of Everything (TOE): The mainstream quest to provide a single coherent theoretical framework of physics that explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.
- The mainstream closest two theories to this TOE: General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory (QFT).
- QFT unifies the 3 non-gravitational forces: strong, weak, and electromagnetic.
- Strong force (SF) holds most matter together into particles such as protons or neutrons.
- Weak force (WF) is responsible for radioactive decay of atoms.
- Electromagnetic force (EMF) is the force between electrically charged particles.
- SF is 137 as strong as EMF, a million times as the WF, and 1038 times as Gravity.
- QFT unifies the 3 non-gravitational forces: strong, weak, and electromagnetic.
- GR and QFT are “accurate” within their domains (the galactic vs. the sub-atomic), but as currently formulated, both can’t be right.
- The mainstream closest two theories to this TOE: General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory (QFT).
- SR, GR, QFT, and ultimately TOE all depend on what “inertia” is, and more specifically this simple yet unanswered question: “How does a spinning top rise?”
- Note that the “luminiferous” or “light bearing” aether used to be assumed as the medium by which light propagates as a wave in “empty space”.
- Mainstream physics has deferred to relativity because the “math works without it”.
- MES view of the aether is not “light bearing” but is instead all things and all things are merely ripples in this true aether.
- We all live in Earth or Aethr or aether.
TOP SECRET: Owen Liang Proves Inception is Real
- In the movie Inception, Leonardo DiCaprio playing as Dom Cobb uses a spinning top to prove to himself if he was in a dream world or not:
- If the top falls down, then he is not dreaming.
- If the top spins forever, then he is dreaming.
- The mainstream physics of spinning tops was lacking so I explored further, which I then stumbled upon THE most obscure, mysterious, and perplexing person of all time: Owen Liang.
- Owen Liang’s monumental discovery proved that spinning tops always spirals upwards to align with gravity, magnetism, or any other force acting upon it.
- “Angular momentum” and “friction” are thus ruled out for the true physics of spinning tops, or any objects in rotation.
- Owen’s findings correlate with both Eric Laithwaite and my gyroscope experiments.
- Owen refers to this finding as the Inverse Law or Theory of Opposition in that spinning tops always align with the opposite direction of the “attractive force” such as gravity or magnetism.
- The US Patent Office could not give an explanation based on conventional physics.
- Owen Liang created many random and repetitive YouTube Channels, Blogs, Websites, and Crowd-Funding Campaigns, as well as online books and finally getting his patent approved!
- I am the FIRST subscriber of many of his online accounts. #Fate
- 5 Categories of the Gyro Space Top
- (1) Gravity Spinning Top
- A basic spinning top that tends to spiral upwards against gravity.
- (2) Inverting Spinning Top
- The original Gyro Space Top.
- Under the influence of a magnetic field that is stronger than gravity, a spinning top always spirals upwards against the direction of the magnetic force, even upside down!
- “Angular momentum” is overcome, or never actually existed…
- (3) Asymmetrical Spinning Top
- An inverting spinning top but with an additional magnet added to provide an asymmetric magnetic field.
- Spinning top spirals and magically aligns against the direction of the vector sum of the magnetic field.
- (4) Hybrid Spinning Top
- An inverting spinning top but with the magnetic field extended such that both gravity and magnetism play a significant role.
- Spinning top spirals and magically aligns against the direction of the vector sum of gravity and magnetism.
- Amazing demonstration of a spinning top wanting to rise upwards against gravity like a flying saucer!
- (5) Hybrid Asymmetrical Spinning Top
- An asymmetric magnetic field setup with gravity playing a significant role.
- Spinning top spirals upwards against the direction of the vector sum of the gravity and the asymmetric magnetic field.
- Behaves the same whether the magnetic is placed below or above the spinning top.
- (1) Gravity Spinning Top
- Owen Laing creates a declaration of independence from “angular momentum”, and I have signed it too!
- This is a cause worthy of protesting in the streets!
- Owen Laing also distances himself from “friction” and its misuse in stopping people from asking further questions.
- I agree.
- The Profound Implications of Owen Liang’s Inverse Law
- Angular momentum is an illusion.
- Gyroscopes give the illusion of angular momentum since they want to maintain orientation such as when the Earth rotates.
- Angular momentum is an illusion.
- Gyro + Scope = Rotation + Measure.
- Spinning tops don’t want to maintain orientation but instead auto-balance against the direction of gravity.- Spinning tops attracted towards a magnetic base behave as when the Earth rotates when no magnetic field is present.
- Are gravity and magnetism interrelated?
- Does the simple action of rotation link the two most mysterious forces?
- Spinning tops should behave similarly under any “opposing force” such as acceleration in a car, plane, or in a rotating space station.
- Is the very sensation of “force” just “magnetism” in a different form?
- Rotation = Auto-Balancing
- Biological animals and advanced robots use sophisticated sensors to balance.
- Spinning tops balance by nothing more than just spinning.
- Are spinning tops more elegant and ingenious than us or the complex robots we design?
- The basis behind UFOs and flying saucer technology is finally revealed.
- The most profound implication: How come no one else figured out this simple yet monumental discovery?
- Owen Liang explains that no one was “stupid enough” to actually double check if angular momentum was real, or just the pseudo-physics it is defined as.
- “Stupidity” and “education” are also illusions.
- Spinning tops attracted towards a magnetic base behave as when the Earth rotates when no magnetic field is present.
- Inception is Real…
- As the Earth turns the spinning top is supposed to fall down because of its “angular momentum”. It doesn’t.
- Are we living in a dream?
- If so, “your mind is the scene of the crime”, so now we know where to investigate further…
Further Information Regarding the Bizarrely Genius Owen Liang
- Here is a List of his many websites that I initially found and were shown in the section before this.
- Quora Accounts:
- Websites:
- (1) TOP SECRET: http://tiltedtop.blogspot.com/
- Blogger Profile: https://www.blogger.com/profile/00204639632855697371
- (2) Space Spinning Top: https://sites.google.com/site/spacespinningtop/
- (3) Inverse Law: http://inverselaw.com/- Amazon Gyro Space Top: https://www.amazon.com/Liangaxis-stip-100-Gyro-Top/dp/B01GGTYQYY
- YouTube Channels:
- List of his many new online accounts I discovered during the making of this video:
- New YouTube Channels:
- eBay Gyro Space Top: https://www.ebay.com/itm/space-top-alien-spinning-top-playable-at-any-directions-/171995933588?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMESELX%3AIT&nma=true&si=WpWyHSVI4MDKMaellNBBdnllYe8%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc
- Ebay Profile: https://www.ebay.com/usr/gyrotop
- Kickstarter Campaigns: https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/419602554/created
- Kickstarter Profile: https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/419602554/about
- Profile photo shows the man behind the legend.
- Amazon Top Secret E-Books: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_1?ie=UTF8&text=Owen+Liang&search-alias=digital-text&field-author=Owen+Liang&sort=relevancerank
- New and Improved Website: https://sites.google.com/view/law-of-inverse
- Gyro Space Top Patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=10,099,151&OS=10,099,151&RS=10,099,151
- PDF Version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R3uBsntNx2POAWsvlHyHDCsr_83z2no0/view
- Patent Application: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150343318A1/en?oq=20150343318
- Patent Granted: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10099151B2/en?oq=20150343318
- Highlights from his new online accounts
- Owen Liang developed a one-wheeled gyro robot that automatically balances even with carrying huge loads.
- I demonstrate this further by showing a battery mounted spinning top can carry in excess of its own weight, and at a much faster rising rate!
- The gyroscope paradox: adding downwards torque creates upwards movement, while adding upwards torque causes downwards movement.
- Bogus YouTube comment section “critic” demonstrates the biggest thing holding humanity back: Arrogant Ignorance.
- Critic makes bogus claim that gyroscopes don’t magically rise when hung by a string.
- Owen Liang developed a one-wheeled gyro robot that automatically balances even with carrying huge loads.
- Truth is, gyroscopes can rise on a string but when “assisted” by a counterweight they instead drop. #GyroMirrorWorld
- Also note the gyro-compass abilities of gyroscopes hung by a string in that applying spin counter to the gyro spin direction generates inertial lift but applying spin in the same direction increases the gyro tendency to maintain its same orientation.
- Bogus critic cuts corners in logic by stating that gyroscopes “cut corners” thus magically rising. #Laughable- Owen Liang still hasn’t responded to my requests to purchase a billion gyro space tops…
- Owen Liang has developed an Amazing Automated Gyro Space Top!
- Owen Liang presents some very profound philosophical implications of the seemingly intelligent physics of spinning tops, as well as why no one else can notice it besides him.
- Highlights from his Kickstarter campaigns
- 5 unsuccessful and/or canceled campaigns…
- Owen states he noticed the flaw in spinning top physics by “pure luck”; although I think it is fate.
- The smartest person in the world is one that understands how a spinning top behaves….
- High-school teacher baffled by the Gyro Space Top defying gravity.
- “Top” in “Top Secret” derive from spinning tops.
- Bogus “critics” appeal to authority, ignore what claims are actually being made, and repeat mainstream irrelevant and robotic talking points that have no basis in reality.
- The “uneducated” think that “educated” people have “explanations” for everything, yet don’t know that basic bicycle physics are still a complete mystery among the very same scientists they appeal to…
- Highlights from his New Website
- All modern physics is built upon the foundation that is spinning top physics, a flaw in the foundation means a flaw in the entire structure.
- Owen Liang references my #MESExperiments Part 1 video of a gyroscope magically rising!
- Owen Updates his Inverse Law or Theory of Opposition with a new concept: “Liang Forces”
- Owen makes has a “fantasy idea” that maybe there are horizontal centrifugal forces, which he calls Liang Forces, that magically provide a rising torque for the spinning tops.
- I had initially entertained this idea as maybe the precession itself is causing a centripetal/centrifugal force imbalance, but my later gyroscope experiments prove that gyroscopes can rise upwards or “downwards”.
- Adding a counterweight or countertorque makes the gyro drop instead of rise.
- Adding a weight on top of the gyro makes it rise instead of drop.
- Owen needs to go back to the drawing board, as do I…- Every textbook in the world doesn’t know how a spinning top behaves…
- Highlights from his Patent:
- He applied for his patent in 29 May 2014 and finally got approved 16 October 2018!
- The patent literally states that the gyro space top can “defy gravity”!
- The patent also states the invention is based on Owen’s “new spinning top theory”!
- If you think conventional physics can explain how the gyro space top works, feel free to discuss this with the US Patent Office, as they still have no clue after 4 years.
- Highlights from his Top Secret Books
- New Theoretical Tops to test his Inverse Law theory:
- Flying Tops
- A spinning top in an airplane should always align with gravity, even when flown perfectly straight relative to a changing elevation.
- Astroid Turning Top
- A spinning top on a rotating astroid should balance inline with the inertia.
- This has some very interesting similarities with Einstein’s theory of general relativity…. Rotation may in fact be the missing link in the “Theory of Everything”.
- Flying Tops
- Spinning tops precess in a spiral upwards or downwards motion, and NOT in a circle!
- Every textbook on Earth has the mistake of a circular precession.
- I initially assumed this was the case because I could not fathom a world where a simple spinning top could be so grossly misunderstood in all aspects.
- Angular momentum can’t explain the gyro space top, spinning tops, or gyroscopes.
- According to “angular momentum”, the gyro space top should maintain orientation and thus move towards the tilting attractive magnet, instead of away from it.
- No upwards force can be found to explain spinning tops, so Owen theorized maybe his horizontal centrifugal “Liang Forces” could cause an upwards torque.
- Owen makes the unproven claim that faster spin speed, to align with his Liang Forces theory, should make the spinning tops rise faster.
- This is not necessarily the case as I have demonstrated that increasing the spin speed of a gyroscope can decrease the rate of rising.
- Even Owen needs to realize to never underestimate the counter-intuitiveness of gyro science!
- Owen extends his theory by viewing the weight due to gravity of the top can be viewed as the “soft anchor” support and supported at the theoretical “Liang Axis”, which is the axis by which the “Liang Forces” act perpendicular upon.
- Owen Liang theorizes that the Laing Forces are distributed across the entire spinning top.
- My gyroscope experiments demonstrations appear to contradict Owen’s “Liang Forces” theory since upwards torque doesn’t necessarily mean a gyroscope will rise, and could actually make it counter-intuitively drop instead.
- Owen makes the unproven claim that faster spin speed, to align with his Liang Forces theory, should make the spinning tops rise faster.
- Owen Liang’s inspirational poem about the paradox of spinning tops, and why only he was able to see their magic.
- New Theoretical Tops to test his Inverse Law theory:
Owen Liang’s Trouble Getting his Gyro Space Top Published on Wikipedia
- Note that I had prepared this section before learning that Owen Liang got his Gyro Space Top patented.
- Wikipedia makes it very difficult to publish or edit posts without references to mainstream news, media, or science outlets, regardless of the self-evident claims by the author.
- This has made it particularly hard for Owen Liang, and his broken English, to get taken seriously by the Wikipedia admins.
- Unreferenced articles usually get labeled “Orphans” and need to be further expanded upon before getting accepted by Wikipedia.
- Owen Liang created a “Gyrotop” user profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=all&search=gyrotop&fulltext=1&searchToken=ekdo4li0s79s7f0blkupyydun
- Owen tried to get his gyro space top findings published from the timeframe August 2015 to June 2016.
- Owen Liang’s posts were initially considered “spam” and a “hoax”.
- Wikipedia is not a place for original or non-mainstream research.
- Although this makes strategic sense from a large-scale publishing standpoint, the end result means that the world is free to document only the mainstream accepted narrative about all topics, while leaving out contrary viewpoints, unless of course these “contrary” viewpoints are talked about in mainstream sources.
- As much as I have criticized Wikipedia, in this particular case, Owen Liang didn’t help it case…
- Owen Liang literally posted at the top of the “Angular momentum” page with links to his YouTube Channel, website, and email address claiming to have debunked angular momentum… LOL
- Ironically, as seemingly out-of-place his post was, the significance of his finding deserves to be also placed at the top of the homepage of Wikipedia as well.
- Owen Liang was willing to send his Gyro Space Top to the admins to prove to them it wasn’t a hoax, but it didn’t appear that these clueless admins even understand the basic mainstream physics they were filtering out.
- Please help by posting and sharing any gyro magic from this video to Wikipedia and any other mainstream sources or universities!
- The easiest way would be to spread the word about gyroscopes magically rising even on ice, magically dropping if counterweights are added, and magically aligning to the gravity, magnetism, or presumably any other attractive force.
- The world is more blind than actually “conspiring” so help break the global collective spell, which we place upon ourselves!
Francis McCabe Large’s Gyro Wheel Demonstrates 1000X+ Torque Over-Unity and the Illusion of “Angular Momentum”
- The late great Francis McCabe lived from 3 May 1936 to 15 March 2014.
- He was a former Rocket Scientist that worked for NASA and Boeing before moving to the much more difficult Gyro Science.
- “If only gyro science was as easy as rocket science” – MES
- Francis demonstrates the illusion of “angular momentum” in the most mind-boggling and practically intriguing way I have seen.
- His Large Gyro Wheel demonstration showcases the magical ability of a motor to operate at over 1000 times its maximum rated torque capability.
- Francis’ experiment involves a motor capable of 1.25 inch-pounds of torque if precession is hindered, such as a fixed base or simply holding the motor in your hand.
- But when allowed to precess, the motor can operate a sustained and even increasing speed of a large 50 pound wheel at a distance of about 25 inches from the rotor, hence 1250 inch-pounds of torque.
- The implications of this simple demonstration:
- Precession gives the illusion of “angular momentum” since it is no where to be found when precession is hindered.
- Precessing wheels behave massless thus small amounts of input energy is needed to maintain or increase spin speed.
- “Over-unity” at 1000X+ means even very heavy objects such as a motorcycle can be spun by a tiny bicycle motor, or even manually by pedaling a bicycle!
- Francis also developed an oscillating gyro-powered 88X torque over-unity piston prototype.
- Two spinning wheels were spun about a second axis by a second motor which creates the behavior of oscillating forced precession that acts against an air powered piston at incredible amounts of torque.
- The implications of this include over-unity torque cars, bicycles, or even giant gyro piston power plants?!
- Interestingly, Eric Laithwaite demonstrated the property of torque over-unity through forced precession in his 1974 Christmas lecture which he showed a precessing gyro wheel that was hindered from rising would shake the entire table and platform back and forth!
- The wheel had a rubber piece at the end of the rotating shift which would roll on the glass roof thus forcing the precession that causes upwards movement and even more forced precession from the roof preventing upwards movement.
- This is when I realized that added weight has a similar effect of rising as does just simple forcing the precession directly.
- Adding weight to a gyroscope or spinning top can make them rise faster, thus verifying Francis experiments of torque over-unity.
- Gyroscopes can rise even when balanced on a thin needle.
- Although faster spin speeds tend to rise slower, adding weight to fast spin speeds appears to nonetheless cause very fast rising; in other words, it appears that gyro spin speed and added weight have a multiplicative inertial lift effect.
- Francis demonstrates that no extra electrical power is required for a precessing gyroscope even at very large torque over-unity.
- I validate this finding by my experiment demonstrating that gyroscopes don’t lose spin speed during precession, upwards rising, or when exerting “inertial” forces from manually twisting.
- Manually applying forced precession requires no extra energy even during gyro torque over-unity.
- This demonstrates that the conventional notion of “conservation of energy” needs to be re-examined. #TheAetherExists
- As per usual, over-confident clueless people downplay both the game-changing discovery of torque free energy over-unity as well as the amount of effort put in by Francis is making his large gyro devices.
- Wikipedia deletes Francis’ page a few months ago…
- Luckily, I have archived the page and included it in this document.
- It is obvious that my destiny was to keep alive the works of these great thinkers and finish what they started.
Inertial Propulsion and Inertial Lift are Facts of Life
- Forced precession has always demonstrated reactionless inertial propulsion and lift.
- Gyros rise upwards when precession is hurried.
- Gyros drop downwards when precession is hindered.
- Note that changes in the center of mass should be associated with changes in weight reading measurements during the change.
- My ice experiments demonstrate the center of mass moving without any reaction, hence inertial propulsion, as well as rising magically upwards, hence inertial lift.
- My weighted gyro and spinning top experiments demonstrate fast inertial lift with increasing weight.
- Adding a counterweight can reverse precession and make a gyroscope rise downwards.
- The key to inertial propulsion is the property of gyroscopes to line up the precession direction with rotor spin direction.
- Note that precession is about the net applied forced as demonstrated by Owen Liang’s gyro space top.
- Eric Laithwaite demonstrated inertial lift through forced precession by hurrying the precession fast such that the gyro lifts up relatively high upwards.
- Very little torque is required to force the precession and hence generate torque over-unity inertial lift!
- Eric Laithwaite demonstrates this during his 1974 Christmas lecture by showing that a heavy 24 pound gyro can generate inertia lift just by applying a small force with one finger to force the precession.
- Francis McCabe’s torque over-unity gyro demonstration shows that very little manual torque is required to generate extremely high torque over-unity in inertially lifting a heavy spinning wheel as well as very little electrical input is required to maintain spinning also at high torque over-unity.
- Even manually spinning a string attached to a spinning gyro can cause inertia lift when the applied spin is counter to the gyro spin direction.
- In fact, the very unwinding of the string can cause slight inertial lift of the gyro and manifested by slight tilting.
- Eric’s anti-gravity wheel demonstrate both inertial lift with little input force but also without the expected weight pushing downwards on his arm as he lifts it like a feather.
- Alex Jones, the inventor that first demonstrated inertial propulsion to Eric Laithwaite, created a device that involves forcing the precession of a tilted gyroscope at an angle such that inertial propulsion will generate forward motion.
- This is similar to my counterweight gyro dropping experiment but at more tilted and twisted angles.
- Sandy Kidd’s invention involves forcing the precession of two gyro wheels such that they want to rise upwards to align spin with precession directions, hence generate inertial lift.
- Note that Sandy Kidd got his inspiration from watching Eric Laithwaite’s Christmas lectures.
- Also note that I have read elsewhere that Sandy may have made another design with variable spin speeds, but I believe my description lines up with the experiments I have shown.
- YouTuber Experimenter “woopyjump” demonstrates amazing horizontal inertial propulsion gyros!
- One experiment involves forcing the precession counter to the normal precession of two gyros, which causes a semi-downwards / horizontal thrust.
- Another simpler experiment involves simply hindering the precession of a vertical gyroscope by putting a barrier in front of it.
- It appears that hindering the precession magically causes the “momentum” or “mass” of the precessing gyro to “re-appear” thus generating reactionless thrust forward.
- Harvey Fiala’s inertial propulsion device involves a precessing gyroscope with slight precession hinderance by a slope upwards railing or circular ring.
Tippy Tops and Phi Tops Also Magically Rise but While Changing Spin Axis
- My gyroscope and spinning top experiments involve a consistent spin axis while rising during precession, but another branch of tops can also change spin axis.
- The tippy top (or tippe top) is a spinning top with a mushroom like round bottom that when spun up can flip upside down onto its stem.
- The phi top is an oblong egg-like shape that when spun on its horizontal position can rise upwards to its vertical position.
- The mainstream narrative regarding phi tops and spinning tops rising is that “friction” magically creates an unspecified and unproven “rising torque”.
- The assumption of “conservation of energy” is used to assume that the overall spin speed lowers as it rises.
- Recall that my gyro experiments prove this assumption is invalid.
- The mathematics of the tippy top and phi top are overly complicated to both derive and model and mainly because they are wrong.
- The assumption of “conservation of energy” is used to assume that the overall spin speed lowers as it rises.
- 1.2 million+ subscribers YouTube channel “Physics Girls” makes a disgraceful and likely purposely deceptive claim that phi tops and tippy tops can’t rise on “low friction” surfaces such as ice.
- Her ice experiments are not low friction, but instead due to the “conductive” nature of aluminum and other metals, any temperature difference will cause heat to flow between the ice and tops. Thus, the ice gets melted and sticks to the tops causing a higher friction environment.
- Freezing the metal tippy top and phi top to lower the difference in temperature shows that the tops can rise even on ice; hence proving that 1.2 million+ subscribers doesn’t mean real science is presented.
- “(Fake) Physics Girl” could’ve just used wooden or plastic tops on ice to show that they can rise.
- Interestingly, on low friction environments, tippy tops and phi tops have slower spin speeds after rising and thus fall down quickly.
- Slow motion tippy tops suggest that higher friction allows for faster spin speed as the stem rolls into the ground creating both faster precession and faster spin speed.
- Adequate friction is required to maximize spin speed after rising.
- Spinning tops tend to rise faster than similar gyroscopes because rolling can hurry the precession.
- A non-rolling spinning top may be just a gyroscope (barring any unaccounted for aetheric field effects).
- My gyroscope on ice experiment in which the outer casing and stem freely spin rapidly yet still rise just as if the stem wasn’t spinning suggest this may in fact be the case.
- A non-rolling spinning top may be just a gyroscope (barring any unaccounted for aetheric field effects).
- Magnetic stirrer experiment of a frozen tippy top on ice show the top wants to flip over but generated spin speed is not fast enough.
- Magnetic stirrers involved rotating two reverse polarity magnets rapidly and allows for rotational motion in a control manner.
- Phi top on glass spun by a magnetic stirrer is an amazing demonstration!
- The great Owen Liang has some fine words to stay about the mainstream “friction” excuse that prevents further research into the real science of spinning tops.
The Gyrocompass Embodies Much of the Magical Properties of Gyroscopes
- It took me hundreds of experiments, videos, and endless hours researching all things gyros and rotation in general, and just to notice one pattern that always prevailed: gyroscopes tend to line up precession direction with spin direction.
- Precession direction tends to be about the vertical axis of the net applied force.
- From Owen Liang’s Gyro Space Top, my gyroscope weighted rising or dropping experiments, and to just about every inertial propulsion invention, they all demonstrate the tendency to line up precession with spin; even if it means torque over-unity.
- Even tilted gyroscopes and gyros at negative angles, they can rise but only until precession and spin lines up.
- Although tippy tops and phi tops also tend to line up spin and precession directions, they tend to do so at the higher center of mass.
- A gimbaled gyroscope demonstrates the ability of a gyroscope to line up spin with the direction of applied force.
- When spin and applied force lines up the gyro is in a stable condition.
- When the spin and applied force is perfectly opposite of each other, the gyro is in an unstable condition and any nudge to imperfection of alignment causes the gyro to start to precess until it lines up spin and applied force directions.
- This is the basic mechanism of a gyrocompass.
- Gyrocompasses can determine the direction of True North (i.e. north pole about the Earth’s spin axis as opposed to the magnetic north pole) by utilizing a mechanism to force precess a free gyroscope as the Earth rotates such that the Earth’s rotation and gyro spin direction line up.
- Typical mechanisms include adding friction or “compensator weights” which act to prevent a free gyroscope to maintain a fixed orientation as the Earth rotates.
- Many ships at sea utilize super sensitive and super robust large gyrocompass setups to navigate without relying on magnetic compasses.
- Francis McCabe may very well have created the first public mechanical demonstration of “inertia” by showing multiple spinning gyroscopes will all orient themselves in the direction of the global applied force and while resisting motion in the direction of the applied force during the realignment period.
- Thus, inertia may very well be the resistance to incoherency of and by the atomic gyros that spin in any direction opposite of the applied force.
- Similar to Francis’ gyros lining up with applied force, toy balls inside a sphere will orient themselves about the spinning direction in a disc-like manner.
- After the entirety of my experiments and findings, I believe the following preliminary and general definition for the mystery of inertia is as follows:
- Preliminary Definition: Inertia is the interaction between coherent and incoherent processes and manifested as resistance.
- Coherency in force or motion requires very little energy to maintain its current state.
- Highly likely field effects are present between gyroscopic motion, gravity, and/or magnetism.
Overview of Mainstream Gyroscopic Physics
- I was originally going over a more formal overview of mainstream rotational mechanics, but I have postponed this to a later date, if it even is needed at all since any concept or formula is wrong if it doesn’t account for gyroscopic inertial lift and propulsion all while behaving massless; albeit formally wrong.
- Big mainstream science YouTube Channels can’t get basic rotational physics correct.
- 14+ million subscribers “Vsauce” doesn’t know gyros rise.
- 270+ thousand subscribers Steve Mould wrongly assumes gyros lose spin speed when manually twisted.
- 455+ thousand subscribers “standupmaths” doesn’t understand tippy top (fake) physics.
- John Perry’s 1890 book on spinning tops understood that hurrying the precession was key to spinning top rising but wrongly attributed it to “friction”.
- John Perry’s book may be the first (public) display of the phi top.
- 199+ thousand subscribers Walter Lewin states that gyroscopes and torques are the most difficult concept in all of physics.
- 5+ million subscribers “Veritasium” can’t find a physicist that can explain how a spinning disk or tippy top functions.
- Note that the spinning disk has an asymmetric hole and that it tends to raise its center of mass but on ice can also occasionally lower its center of mass and back up again.
- Also note that when spun in the air it still exhibits the tendency to raise its center of mass.
- Big mainstream science websites baffled by objects in rotation.
- “American Scientist” admits that inertia and gyroscopes are still a lost mystery.
- Harvard physics professor says the hardest concept in physics is spinning tops.
- Even famous Nobel Prize winning physicists Wolfgang Pauli and Niels Bohr were also baffled by the tippy top.
- James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), discoverer of the “laws” of electrodynamics, has a famous quote that appears to suggest (at least to MES) that the simple spinning top appears difficult only due to the current overly-complicated mindset of humanity.
- "To those who study the progress of exact science, the common spinning-top is a symbol of the labours and the perplexities of men."
- James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), discoverer of the “laws” of electrodynamics, has a famous quote that appears to suggest (at least to MES) that the simple spinning top appears difficult only due to the current overly-complicated mindset of humanity.
- Even bicycles are still a mystery to mainstream science! #YouCantMakeThisStuffUp
- Note that bikes display automatic self-balancing without a rider much like spinning tops.
SUMMARY OF MES BOMBSHELL DISCOVERIES AND REALIZATIONS
- MES Axiom: All explanations are approximations to exact natural phenomena.
- Basic forced precession has always demonstrated reactionless inertial propulsion since the center of mass rises with little or no expected weight change.
- Very little input force is required to lift even very heavy wheels with just a small push of a finger or even the very unwinding of a piece of thread attached to a spinning gyro!
- Gyroscopes can rise all on their own even at super steep angles.
- Low rotational or precessional friction is required.
- The smallest amount of rotational friction can prevent rising.
- Gyroscopes can rise “downwards” when a counterweight is added that should make it rise upwards.
- Gyroscopes can behave lighter or heavier!
- The added counterweight is far in excess of any possible conventional notions of “friction-based rising torques”, yet the gyro drops!
- Gyroscopes can rise magically upwards on an ice cube while displaying zero centripetal force or angular momentum.
- The notion of circular motion without centripetal force, centrifugal force, or angular momentum indicates that the “mass” is disappearing.
- As the gyro spin speed lowers the ice block moves in increasingly larger circles indicating that the conventional notion of “mass” is reappearing.
- With no weight added, increasing gyro or spinning top spin speed tends to slow the rate of rising.
- Adding weight tends to increase the rate of rising.
- Gyroscopes and spinning tops can rise even with relatively heavy added non-spinning weights.
- Added non-spinning weight tend to increase precession speed and rate of rising.
- Thus, adding weight forces the precession which causes the gyro to rise.
- The gyroscope paradox:
- Adding downwards torque causes upwards movement.
- Adding upwards torque causes downwards movement.
- Adding weight induces forced precession which causes magical rising.
- Added non-spinning weight tend to increase precession speed and rate of rising.
- Gyroscopes can rise even when hung by a string.
- Adding a counterweight to assist rising instead counter-intuitively prevents the gyro from rising.
- Gyroscopes can even rise while balancing on a tiny thin needle.
- Gyroscopes exert inertial forces with zero loss in spin speed.
- Precession, upwards precession, and even torque-over unity demonstrations don’t involve extra loss of spin speed or extra required torque during forced precession.
- Inertial lift and propulsion are and were always facts of life.
- The principle behind both is the gyroscope ability to move in spiraling directions towards aligning both spin and forced precession directions but without expected Newtonian reaction to motion or even any conventional notion of expected “mass”.
- Tippy tops and phi tops demonstrate gyro rising ability while changing spin axis.
- Rolling allows for faster spin speeds after rising, thus friction is required for prolonged spin durations but not directly for rising since they can rise even on low friction environments such as ice.
- Tippy tops and phi tops can rise even on ice assuming the materials and temperature difference does not cause melting of the ice.
- Once in risen position on ice, tippy tops and phi tops drop down quickly since they are not able to generate fast enough spin speeds during rising due to lack of friction.
- Spinning tops tend to rise faster than similar precessing gyroscopes because rolling generates forced precession.
- Frictionless spinning tops are just gyroscopes (assuming there are no unaccounted for field effects).
- This is demonstrated by gyroscopes rising on ice in similar fashion whether the outer casing and stem spin rapidly (thus resembling a spinning top) or not.
- Frictionless spinning tops are just gyroscopes (assuming there are no unaccounted for field effects).
- The underlying principle of spinning tops and gyroscopes is that spin and precession direction tend to align and manifested by motions towards this alignment.
- Precession tends to be about the axis of net applied force.
- Inertial spiraling motion tends to be opposite the axis of net applied force.
- This is the embodiment of the gyrocompass.
- Even tilted gyroscopes and gyros at negative angles tend to rise such that spin and precession direction line up.
- Tippy tops and phi tops prefer to align spin and precession but at a higher center of mass.
- Both a collection of gyroscopes and a collection of non-spinning balls tend to line up with net global applied force, while exhibiting resistance during the realignment.
- This resistance may very well be the mechanism behind the mystery of “inertia”.
- Inertia, as exemplified by rising gyroscopes, may very well be the interaction between incoherent and coherent processes or field effects and manifested as resistance.
MES DUALITY BREAKTHROUGH CONCEPT
The conscious is the manifestation of the subconscious; and vice versa.
Elaboration of this Realization
This concept is the realization of the interconnectedness of visible reality with the invisible; and can be conceptualized in all aspects of life.
MES Note: For each statement necessitates its counterpart, hence "and vice versa".
You are looking at your mind. | |
|---|---|
The external is a manifestation of the internal. | |
The individual is a representation of the collective. | |
Understanding anything means understanding everything. | |
What you know is what you do. What you learn is how you learn. Improving yourself improves others. | |
Exercising the body benefits the mind. | |
The exoteric is a manifestation of the esoteric. | |
Centrifugal force and motion necessitate centripetal force and motion. Charges necessitates discharge. Motion necessitates loss of force. Acceleration necessitates loss of inertia. |
MES Note: *Counterspace is in the same region where thoughts, principles, and abstractions reside: Everywhere and nowhere.
The Ramifications of this Concept
What follows from internalizing this concept is the following.
- No-thing exists on its own.
- No-thing has meaning on its own.
- No-thing is random.
- Every-thing is recorded in every-thing.
- All things are all things in all things.
- There is no greater good.
- There is no necessary evil.
- Numbers, words, letters, & symbols are as real as every other thing.
- The words people use indicate the actions they have or have not done (see Peter Hyatt’s Statement Analysis: https://www.youtube.com/user/MichaleenOFlynn1/videos).
- Perception of reality is modifiable.
- Perception of reality is manifested in all things.
- Reality is exactly as it seems.
- Aim of life is to uphold principles while removing contradictions; that is all.
- If you know any-thing you know every-thing.
- Perception is a spectrum based on knowledge of the conscious and subconscious.
- All sides of an argument are locally right but globally are wrong.
- You are what you eat, say, think, believe, do.
- You are the people around you.
- You are seeing your mind.
- You are seeing your thoughts.
- If you don’t know something, no one does.
- Any notion opposite to this realization is an externalization.
- Externalizations begat externalizations.
- Externalizing people begets a world where people are expendable.
- Taxation is theft.
- Voting is externalization of control.
- Authority is who you choose to author your life.
- How you learn is what you learn.
- Public education gets public information.
- Private education gets private information.
- Hierarchical education gets hierarchical information.
- Mainstream education gets mainstream information.
- Education gets information.
- The infamous “Do what thou wilt” or “Do what you want” or Nike’s “Just do it” philosophy is profound when actually knowing you what want.
- All thoughts, actions, timeframes, patterns, numbers, science, religion, calculations, finances, relationships, family, events, astronomy, astrology, and even sports in real-time line up and become coherent but only when you do.
Discovery of #MESDuality
Admittingly, this realization came to me when I was super high on marijuana, alcohol, and caffeine (while intermittent fasting) all at the same time; out of these three I rarely ever do the former but daily do the latter. This realization was made possible by listening and watching videos at abnormally fast playback speeds for many months. This realization was inevitable after coming across Dr. Judy Wood’s work. This realization was on a crash course to my mind when I came across Eric Laithwaite’s gyroscopes. This realization was made a few days after I came across the great Owen Laing. The great and uniquely bizarre Owen Laing. The great and immovably simple Owen Liang.
Owen Liang knew one thing: spinning tops rise upwards against gravity all while perfectly balancing and auto-adjusting by spiraling upwards whenever disturbed. He knew a horizontal “friction” force couldn’t generate life-like automatic upwards rising and balancing, and he would not take “torque” for an answer. I provided an overly in-depth overview of Owen Liang’s online presence because his life and character proved irrefutably that knowledge was given as much as it is earned.
Why could Judy see towers turn to dust but no one else could?
Why could Eric see gyroscopes behave massless but no one else could?
Why could Owen Liang see spinning tops rise against gravity but no one else could?
Why don’t thousands of universities, millions of books, billions of people, and untold amount of digital information contain the simple observations that the above three great people could see?
Why am I the only person to now see the combined vision that only they could?
These questions removed any notion of looking elsewhere for answers. At an instance, I realized the answer to this and all questions. It was an answer I had known for all of my life but tried to ignore, I tried to externalize.
Judy felt great unease about the events that occurred on 9/11 so she investigated further to know exactly what happened. Eric felt unease about the universally unaccounted for massless behavior of gyroscopes, so he investigated further to figure out exactly how they operate. Owen felt unease about friction as a plausible explanation for spinning tops spiraling upwards while auto-adjusting and auto-balancing, so he investigated further. The common theme is they all investigated further because they felt they had to.
For me, I have always felt unease about every-thing. Why do we have to work? Why do you we have to wake up in the morning? Why do we have to do anything we don’t want to? Why can’t we just live? Why can’t information just come to me? Why must I study in order to know? And the ultimate of all:
Why should I care about any-thing?
Throughout my life, I have pondered these questions, and more so pondered why others “cared” so much about an obviously fleeting day-to-day reality. But these questions seemed merely existential (the philosophy of existing) and had not derived any practical uses for even entertaining them. Are they merely engaging and intriguing questions that have no basis in practical, financial, social, ”real world” applications?
Then as the reality TV host made his pitch to become the host of the US political reality TV show, I became intrigued not at the host but at the uniform and uniformly wrong “mainstream” media narrative regarding all things. The bogus “Russian hacking/colluding/meddling/conspiring in the U.S. 2016 elections” was the clearest, fakest, and bizarrely polarizing pure evil propaganda I had been aware of. “Educated” friends had become paranoid by the media-selected scapegoat, so much so that even siding with the Reality TV Host seemed like a rational reactionary decision.
But if the “news” (North-East-West-South) was fake, then other “news” must be fake, so I investigate further. Researching further, the obvious pedo-blackmail (or worse) of world leaders becomes apparent (https://mes.fm/pizzagate-playlist). Then noticing the Vatican’s blatant and bizarrely out-of-place snake symbolism (https://mes.fm/occult-playlist) made things comically weird. How can no one see that Pope Paul VI (PP6 or 666, and Pope is re-arranged as 6o66) Audience Hall is in the shape of a giant snake’s head with fangs and a red tongue?! Coming across the front cover of Dr. Judy Wood’s book (https://mes.fm/911truth-playlist) showing an image of towers turning to dust was the most incomprehensible state my mind has ever been in. How can no one see that the towers vanished with little trace of their existence in a mere few hours? From then on, the word “impossible” was removed from my vocabulary.
All things are possible.
Free energy had thus become a fact of life, and my goal in life had been set: https://mes.fm/freeenergy-playlist. The motivation to research further all things and every-thing at 16X speed (https://mes.fm/videospeed-extension) set me in motion to literally learn all things. But even more so, the existential questions I had pondered for much of my life were answered. Free energy meant every worry, action, and even the dreaded “work” was unnecessary. Why do we have to work when the only reason we work is to pay for the right to use energy to live?
The conventional perception of reality is an illusion.
Free energy means roads are unnecessary, the electric grid is unnecessary, cars are unnecessary, burning oil is unnecessary, destroying forests is unnecessary, and especially cities which replaces the natural environment with a congested, polluted, loud, chaotic, and dead grey color concrete jungle that is overlaid with bright lights that blind the eyes from the lack of life, and insult to life as the homeless are ignored as if they don’t even exist; especially cities are unnecessary. War, poverty, pain, and suffering are unnecessary; but if we had eyes to see and a mind to comprehend, we have already and always known this.
Then when coming across Eric Laithwaite’s anti-gravity wheel, and the very simple observation of gyroscopes precessing with zero centripetal force or angular momentum, I immediately knew two things: I literally know nothing, but now I knew I had a starting point: gyroscopes and rotational mechanics: https://https:@mes/series.
The obscure Owen Liang, together with his broken English and unnecessary number of online accounts, made everything clear. Spinning tops were blatantly “anti-gravity”, blatantly “anti-angular momentum”, and blatantly anti-every notion of mainstream physics.
Why was the simplest of observations regarding the simplest of objects involving the simplest of motions shattering the most complicated of physical concepts yet only accessible to the simplest of minds?
The answer to this question is demonstrated in my simple experiments of gyroscopes rising all on their own: https://mes.fm/mesexperiments-playlist. Gyros rising meant that mainstream physics has to fall; since conservation of reality has to be withheld. An inaccurate view of the simple requires a complete re-examination of the complex. Thus, a spinning top defying conventional logic meant that every-thing needs correction. And since I am the only person that sees this, then my words shall and will ripple across the aether.
Of all the infinite people, planets, atoms, stars, molecules, ideas, thoughts, digital information, concepts, hours, days, years, and entire civilizations, why can’t anyone see reality for what it is? A simple spinning top defies mainstream physics, yet entire towers turned to dust with advanced hidden (in plain sight) technology. This is the prime example of juxtaposition. From this the self-evident truth arises:
I am all that exists.
Not “me” as in the person speaking right now, but “me” as in “we”, as in all things are one. “You” are not a separate entity but are simply “me” at a different level of awareness. A rock is not an “inanimate” object but is you and I with very little awareness. We, you, me, I am the universe, the one word the uni-verse, with the currently shattered incoherent levels of awareness manifested as everything we see, do, and think. Thus, all things are just different aspects of ourselves; even the “evil new world order politicians, bankers, and dictators” are just the average person but with “power”.
Who is more evil, the politician that sends people to kill other people in “wars” or the people that freely choose to kill?
I state “freely” because everyone has a choice to uphold principle; regardless of the consequence. If death, torture, or poverty is a result of disobeying orders to kill, then so be it. A difficult choice indeed, but the benefit is knowing exactly your aim (I am) of life. A difficult choice with a small window of opportunity to make a choice; but mathematically the same as a long lifespan with multiple and prolonged choices that test our principles.
MES Duality is the Realization that the Apparent Duality in All Things is an Illusion
How is the person that compromises principles any different from the politician or world “leader” that justifies evil for the “greater good”?
The apparent “duality” is present in all things not because it exists but because we think it exists.
Ruler and ruled. Master and slave. Life and death. Man and woman. Particle and wave. Input and output. Pain and joy. Light and darkness. Theism and atheism (a-theism). 1 and 0. Individual and collective. Work and play. Young and old. Parent and child. God and man. Good and evil. These are but illusions, ripples in the aether of duality. MES Duality is the realization that we are seeing our mind, seeing our thoughts, and made sensible by the illusion of duality; the illusion of concrete existence.
MES Duality is the realization that the conscious is a manifestation of the subconscious; and vice versa.
All is All in All and Thinking Otherwise is “Sinful”
This apparent “duality” is present in all things. “Sin” is not doing “evil” (opposite of live), but rather sin is the illusion of “good and evil” itself. It is the illusion of duality. Sin, the sine wave or sin(x) or sin-e or sin-6 or sin(X = 10 = duality), the mathematical representation of duality, is present in all things; even in astronomy and astrology as the apparent path of the Sun in the Earth’s sky, the ecliptic, as the Sun dies and rises during Aries the Lamb, the Lamb of God, Islam or Is (God) Lam (Lamb), and Sun passing over the ecliptic (Passover). The Sun that crisscrosses (or Christ on the Cross) the ecliptic, the X, the cross, the “as above so below”, the Roman numeral for 10, or 1 and 0, the representation of duality.
All is one and thinking otherwise is “sinful”.
Sin means “working” instead of being. Evil is thinking you live (live = evil = devil) instead of knowing you are and have always been. Being good is being godly, is being God. The number of the beast is 666 and all must have it to buy or sell goods. The beast is not a “demon” or “Satan” but rather the beast of burden, the brute, the animal put to work, tracked, and surveyed like a product with a barcode; the mark of the beast is the perception that you are just an animal, an animated object, a product that needs to be micro-managed and domesticated. In Canada, all people need a Social Insurance Number (SIN) to work; hence to buy or sell goods. Sin is the illusion of “work”, both personally and expecting others to “work” for you. The number 6, is a curved conjoined 1 and 0. It is a spiral. 6 is the yin to a 9’s yang. It is a vortex, a hurricane, a water drain, a true magnetic centrifugal vortex and spirals back into a centripetal vortex as per Ken Wheeler’s true magnetism. The ancient Sumerians had a base 6 number system and supposedly were an “advanced” civilization. 6 is the merger of 1 and 0. The split from unity is duality. Interestingly, even the number π = 3.14… should actually be τ = 6.28… Yes, pi is wrong (https://tauday.com) and is half what it should be; π should be τ, 2 should be 1, π is merely another illusion of duality. In fact, the square of any real every number is both positive and negative; i.e. 41/2 = 2 or -2. And the square of a negative number is imaginary and is represented by “i" which is the conjunction of 1 and 0; the mathematics or language of the uni-verse (or one-word or one-world) is made visible through the illusion of duality. Even in mainstream concepts such as “anti-matter vs matter”, “anti-particles vs particles”, light radiating stars vs light absorbing black stars or “black holes”, the apparent duality of the uni-verse is inescapable.
We are made of Carbon: 6 protons, 6 electrons, 6 neutrons; soon we will pay a Carbon Tax, a 666 tax just to breath (b-aethr or aether). On the Earth (aethr) which is tilted at 66.6 degrees from horizontal and moving around the Sun at 66,600 mph. The infamous XXX or KKK are 666. The often-mocked Imperial unit system of measurements has 12 inches per foot, or 62. 3 feet per yard, or 66 inches. The modern metric system splits the 6 to 10; as expected. Even an hour (or Egyptian “Horus” sky god) is split into 60 minutes, and 1 minute is 60 seconds. Clocks move around a circle of 360 degrees or 6*60. “Time”, the measure of change, the tempest storm brings about the winds of change, the tempter tempting to give up absolute principles in exchange for a temporal fleeting reality.
“Lead us not into temptation” which causes us to perceive the temporary as permanent.
Hexagons abound in all things, from corporations, symbols, countries, to magnetism, molecules, atoms, efficiently compacting spheres, and even the planet Saturn. The number of sides in a hexagon is 6, as expected. The “all seeing eye” inside the equilateral triangle or 3 sided polygon with 3 angles of 60 degrees: 60 60 60. The same Tri-Force tri-angle in the famous video game Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, in which you literally play as Link, the “link” between worlds, between the triforces of Power (the final boss Ganondorf) and Wisdom (Princess Zelda), and linked by the triforce of Courage; the most powerful power was and always has been courage.
The all seeing I in the tri-angle of 666.
Adam (or Atom or Egyptian sun god Atum, sun as in the galactic atom) became split or became Even and they ate of the apple of the forbidden knowledge of good and evil, the illusion of duality. When the apple (app or 666) landed on Isaac Newton’s head in 1666, the same Isaac Newton born shortly after midnight on Christmas Day was now given the forbidden knowledge of gravity. The same illusion of gravity which was overcome in the supposed moon landing at 1969 (1666). The same forbidden Apple, which we byte when we use an iMac. Computers use digits of duality, 1’s and 0’s, which give the illusion of moving pictures much like the illusion of duality gives us the illusion of reality. The iPhone (the letter “i” is just a 0 and 1) gives the illusion of talking to others across the world through digital binary representations of electromagnetic waves; the illusion of duality is the illusion that you are talking to anyone but yourself.
2009 iPhone 3G (or 3g or 3g* or 3-9 or 666) Commercial: “There’s an app (666) for that”.*
The number 3 is half 6 and is a rotated W or M. W is the Hebrew 6th letter, and hence WWW or 666. W, or w or double U in English or double-V in French or UU or VV (or X) or Roman numeral 55 hence 10 or 2 halves hence duality, happens to be the 23rd letter in the English alphabet; and coincidently made up of a 2 and 3. The 6th letter in Hebrew, is the 23rd (or 2*3 = 6 or 2/3 = 0.666…) in English, and just so happens to be the shape of the Olympic logo, and the W-oman and M-an merger of W and M is the freemason as above so below symbol. 23 just so happens to be the number of the best basketball players Michael Jordan and LeBron James. The letter E is a rotated W, as in ONE = OWN = NWO; and hence WE = ME = 66. The numbers of the best NHL players are Wayne Gretzky (99) and Mario Lemieux (66). The W or double U or UU or inverting the second U get “Un” or U.N. or French for one “un”, hence gives the direction that the “United Nations” is pushing the world of duality towards, which is to unite the nations into “one”, albeit a technocratic microchipped digital surveilled world; and made possible because we have yet to realize that we are and have always been one.
From the World Wide Web (www) to the much feared World War 3 or WW3 or WWW and even the popular World Wrestling Entertainment show or WWE or WWW or 666; which just happens to originally be WWF, or F the 6th letter in English, the infamous “666” can’t be escaped. The same famous “f” or logo for Facebook, and hence the number 6. The famous number “33”, which sums to 6, and is a rotated WW or 66, Jesus’ age of death (d-aeth or aethe-r), the freemason highest degree, Earth’s infamous “33 degree parallel”, and the age of people during many discoveries or accomplishments (so keep any eye out for what I post in 2 years from now). Numbers and patterns follow people and actions.
The illusion of duality is akin to the illusion of fear or worry about any-thing. Why do people worry when they are awake, but logically they are at peace when they are asleep? Half of a person’s life is worry free in perfect slumber. Why must we contradict our very being when we worry? Worry and fear result in the need to call 911 (or 999 in the UK). 911 or 9/11 towers were struck minutes before 9:11 AM or 11 minutes which is the 66 degree of a 360 degree 60 minute circle: 966, or 666.
Externalization begets minimization of the self.
Further reinforcement of this realization is in noticing weird eyes (https://mes.fm/eyes) which represent the fakeness of a person, and peculiar hand poses of powerful people (https://mes.fm/hands) which represent that even the rulers are ruled by hierarchical dogma. Check out those links at your own peril.
The Ripple in the Aether of Duality
The aether, or ae-ther, or ancient æther, which uses the outdated æ or “ash” and is merger of a and e, shows the yin and yang. The merger of inverted and reverse 6 and 9. The 69. The aether is the merger of duality. Duality is the visible universe we perceive in polarized opposites, but ultimately are one. The aether makes itself present in all things. Among the most used words in English are “a” and “the”, along with the suffix (or term that appends or includes to form a word that derives its meaning from the root) “er”. A-the-er or Aether. The very breath we breathe while covered in skin or leather all while we enjoy the weather on Earth. Even God the Father (or a-f-ther in which f the 6th letter in English, 6 which is an e, hence Aether), God the Son (or plasma dielectric counterspatial sun), and God the Holy Spirit (or holey magnetic toroid around the sun). Your “dad” (or 666) is not your father, the Aether is. Your mom (or wow or 303 or 606) is not your mother, the O-m-ther or Oether or the female duality component of the Aether is. You were not born when an egg (or “egg” or 666) was fertilized but you always existed. The 3 or rotated W or M or 6 or trinity may very well be the 6-6-6 or 3 principle states of the visible electromagnetic aetheric universe if Ken Wheeler’s magnetism holds up, which I think it does. Each letter of the number “six” is a representation of duality: “s”, “i" (formed from 1/0), and x are just representations of duality as is in the number form 6; hence 6 or s-i-x is just 6-6-6. The “666”, the tri-angle, the trinity, the Father/Son/Holy Spirit, Jesus on the cross (X) pierced with three 9 inch nails (666), the body/mind/soul, the male/female/child; gender or sex which merges the male sex with the female sex during sex or the merger of “i” or 1/0 into “e” or 6; hence the illusion of polarization or duality gives rise to 3 apparent separate states of being or 666 and as states of duality + merger, when in fact there is, was, and always has been just one state but in different forms; the aether.
The aether is every-thing and made visible by the polarized illusion of duality which is nothing more than ripples in the fabric of the aether. “Ripples” are akin to pressure pulses in air or other materials that give rise to sound; vibration giving rise to sound; sound giving rise to language; language giving rise to creation; the word made flesh…
The ripple in the aether of duality.
“Coincidentally”, Ripple XRP, Ethereum, and Bitcoin (bit = digital 1/0 = binary = duality), are the top 3 cryptocurrencies, which would’ve and could still make you a lot of money if you pay attention.
You can buy money with your attention.
The All Seeing and All Knowing I
The infamous “all seeing eye” as shown on the USA one (ONE, OWN, NWO are all one) dollar bill atop the pyramid with the inscription at the base of Roman numerals MDCCLXXVI for 1776; the year of the Declaration of Independence and coincidentally so too the founding of the so-called Bavarian Illuminati; M = 1000, DC = 600, C = 100, LX = 60, X = 10 , VI = 6 or 1000+600+100+60+10+6 or 666. The exoteric “all seeing eye” where eye as in Eve-n, with the shape of oval or ovum or egg, as in the merger of 2 eyes reveals the MES esoteric “all seeing and all knowing I”. “I”, the uppercase of “i” or the merger of 0 and 1, the merger of duality; just as “me” is “we” is 66.
The most holy of holies was the name of God and pronounced once a year in Biblical times, and whose vowels are now (publicly) lost and only the tetragrammaton remains YHWH (often assumed as Yahweh) but even this is replaced around 7000 times in the Bible (the Bi-Ball, 2-ball, 2-bowl as per David LaPoint’s primer fields, the book of duality, the book of the old and the new testaments, the book of 66 books) with the phrase LORD. The holy of holies, the name (name = amen), which must not be pronounced because of fear of profaning it, was, is, and will always be I Am, that is I Am Who I Am.
The French “Je suis” (I am) coincidentally appears like “Jesus”. Jesus or the likely original Aramaic name Yeshua (putting apparent heavily debated online arguments aside); and which “coincidentally” I was born in Iraq or ancient Babylon, speak Aramaic, and over 10 years ago I just so happened to copy and paste “YHWH” for every instance of the word “LORD” in the Bible (PDF Download Link: https://1drv.ms/b/s!As32ynv0LoaIkxrune6Kllq_p1Kz) for no other reason other than principle and which I now understand why I was driven to do that; Yeshua has a meaning along the lines of Ya-save or Ya-saves, Ya-rescues or “God Saves” or “God Rescues” or even “God is Salvation” or the MES true meaning:
I Am Salvation.
Thinking otherwise is to think there is a “thing” or “intelligence” greater than you, an external or artificial intelligence, a Christ external, an Anti-Christ, an AI-Christ which the world is heading towards and has always been heading towards as it awaits its religious “Savior” or technocratic AI equivalent.
The face of God was always staring at you in the mirror, so act like it.
AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH
The Real Physics of Spinning Objects Requires Re-Examining All of Science
Thus far, I have mainly focused on the behavior of basic types of spinning objects like gyroscopes and spinning tops. Some other areas of research, either directly or indirectly related to rotation, are presented here. I will be investigating these further so stay tuned!
If the physics of a “simple” spinning top is still a mystery, thus all physics is a mystery, and a mystery which should be explored with fresh eyes and a mind willing to explore and comprehend; to make coherent the incoherent.
Note that I have included many sources of information here to serve as a well-organized catalogue for future scientific exploration.
Multiple Spinning Wheels, Reverse Spinning Wheels, and Bicycles
I have mainly dealt with just one spinning wheel, and with uniform spin directions. But does the magical gyroscope behavior change with multiple spinning wheels and in different orientations? What about if the wheels were spinning in opposite direction? And, how do bicycles balance all on their own without even needing a rider?!
Retrieved: 25 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/tlpkV
Are gyros the missing link between the atomic and the galactic?
Retrieved: 25 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/qEDaP
Gyroscopic Stabilized Bike Wheel?!
This is a very interesting invention that has essentially a spinning wheel inside a bike front wheel, thus supposedly providing some extra stabilizing effects. I believe this is an important fact to consider when trying to understand true bike physics.
Retrieved: 27 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/K1fBE
A training bike without training wheels?!
Monowheel Let’s You Ride Inside a Bike Wheel!
After I finished filming, I realized another great bicycle to explore is the ridiculous monowheel, which as the name states is just a one-wheeled bike; similar to a unicycle but the rider is inside the wheel.
Retrieved: 6 June 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/hFtWb
LOL the only more bizarre than the monowheel is the vertical camera orientation of the video…
Apparently, the world record for a monowheel motorcycle is 61.128 miles per hour.
Retrieved: 6 June 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/fz9UN
1960s Gyro-X Prototype Car
The Gyro-X was a gyro-wheel stabilized 2 wheeled car and very similar to the gyro-bike wheel and monowheel bicycle/motorcycle. The Gyro-X was a prototype car in the 1960s but never made it into full production. The car utilizes a heavy 230 lb large gyro wheel placed at the center and has a “precession ram” that turn the gyro, thus inducing precession, during turning or any imbalance. This precession is again such that the gyro wheel and hence entire car rolls to align spin direction with applied force by precession ram. Interestingly, the gyro wheel can spin up to 2 hours on its own. #IWantOne
Retrieved: 15 June 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/G6Prg
Bicycles Can’t Balance When Steering is Locked?!
A very interesting aspect of bicycles is that if the steering handlebar is locked, then it can’t balance and falls as easily as if it was stationary.
Retrieved: 18 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/RZCEQ
Bicycles Can Balance Even with a “Negative Caster Trail” or Counter Rotating Wheels to Cancel the “Gyroscopic Effect”
A good illustration of the balancing ability of bicycles is found in the Scientific American article covered earlier. A bike can balance even in spite of many of the previous theories such as the “gyroscopic effect” or a “caster trail” (which is like an office chair where the wheels follow or trail the movement of the chair).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-bicycle-problem-that-nearly-broke-mathematics/
Bicycles (and Humans) Balance on a Treadmill Without Needing Forward “Momentum”
Adding to the magic of bicycle balancing, forward movement is not necessary so long as the wheels are turning, and steering is enabled. Thus, on a treadmill there should be no difference in terms of balancing.
Retrieved: 30 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/ANSmS
Interestingly, the faster a person’s legs are moving, and not necessarily the speed of forward motion, govern balance.
Retrieved: 30 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/x66cM
Eric Laithwaite’s “Most Remarkable” Gyroscope Experiment on a Pivot
Once again, after filming this video I have realized more experiments to include for reference. This time I have revisited Eric Laithwaite’s Christmas lectures and have included his amazing gyroscope on pivot and counterweight experiment.
In the experiment, Eric has a gyroscope balances at the pivot with a counterweight. When he spins up the gyroscope while starting off the gyro aligned horizontally, the pivot rises while the gyro tilts downwards a bit, effectively behaving as if it appears to have lost “weight” or “mass”.
This is a very interesting experiment. The spin and precession directions are such that they want to align by rising but the speed at which the gyro rises upwards is very intriguing. Noticing that the gyro’s relative position drops down even though the pivot rises indicates that the initial quick rising is when the gyroscope is in a vertical orientation. This is similar to typical precession in that the gyro resists tilting downwards but instead precesses around in a circle. Thus, it appears the gyro behaves massless during a vertical orientation as the counterweight lifts the pivot upwards until the gyro starts to tilt thus initiating precession.
Interesting to note that Eric viewed this experiment as his most remarkable experiment!
Mainstream Science Can’t Get Curling Physics Right
If you want to explore scientific frontiers that haven’t been answered yet, then the simplest of objects will do. A curling stone moves in the direction of rotation but a regular circular cup spins in the opposite direction.
Retrieved: 28 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/GtM9J
Here is a view of the bottom of the curling stone which has a concave bottom in which the “running band” is what makes contact with the ice.
Compare the heavy and wide curling stone with the following upside down glass that moves against the direction of rotation.
I believe there is an interplay going on with rolling and normal precession due to the weight of the spinning top. If rolling motion overcomes precession it can reverse the direction of precession.
MES INTERESTING DISCOVERY: Spinning Tops Can Precess in Reverse Direction and Likely Due to Rolling
An illustration of what may be happening with the curling stone is shown in a few of my draft experiment videos. A top with a relatively large peg, light weight, a near vertical orientation, and/or on a normal friction surface can precess in the reverse direction.
Retrieved: 29 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/N756I
Note that for the same spinning top that precesses in reverse direction, it can be made to precess in the normal direction by slightly tilting it.
MES INTERESTING DISCOVERY: Tippy Tops Rolling in Opposite Direction of Precession but Can Precess in Normal Direction Once Flipped
A tippy top has a very large round stem which makes rolling very easy to do, and thus it easily rolls in the opposite direction of spinning.
Retrieved: 29 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/UzJmQ
This is essentially my illustration of rolling motion which I covered earlier.
But when it is flipped upside down, it tends to precess in the same direction of spinning and might be because the flat stem doesn’t tend to roll. Similarly, a curling stone has as concave bottom which is not as prone to rolling as a convex or a protruding round stem.
I think this is the right track for understanding real curling physics.
Gyroscopic Effects Without Circular Motion
Non-rotating contraptions also exhibit “gyroscopic effects”. And I believe these are just further illustrations of “field coherency” due to repetitive force, motion, acceleration, torque, etc.
Vibrating Gyroscopes in Electronics and Nature
Many electronics have a vibrating gyroscope that is used to detect changes in orientation.
Retrieved: 25 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/33Zog
Even some insects have vibrating gyros in the form of “halters”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halteres
Retrieved: 25 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/GkjOk
Is the flapping of bird wings exhibiting gyroscopic (field coherency) effects? #Yes
Vibrating Inverted Pendulum Stabilizes Upside Down!
This is some fascinating stabilization and magical rising effects!
Retrieved: 28 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/GvQG2
Similar to a gyroscope, with no applied vibration the pendulum just swings back and forth while moving downwards to the stable vertical position.
John Hartman’s Square Gyro
Another freethinking inventor, John Hartman, showcases that even without circular motion, the gyroscopic rigidity can still be made. He does this by spinning a chain around a square gyro so that the only thing moving is the chain and in straight lines before each sharp 90 degree turn.
Retrieved: 17 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/Zd2wm
He theorizes that the rigidity is due to a “see-saw” effect where tilting downwards in one location lifts the opposite end. And the movement of the chain or gyro-wheel causes the reverse to happen thus high speeds generates higher stability.
Tadashi Tokieda’s Toys and Chirality
One of the best (mainstream) professors, Tadashi Tokieda, has showcased many baffling physics observations regarding simple toys. Some of these explore the idea of “chirality” or the phenomenon where the mirror image of an object or action produces different results. Some toys that exhibit this behavior is the rattleback, and even the tippy top which I covered earlier.
Rattlebacks Rattle Backwards and Forwards
The best example of chirality is the rattleback, which is just an asymmetric lump mass that has the property of a preferred spin direction in response to different inputs. Rolling the rattleback can make it spin horizontally and the direction of spin depends on where the rattleback was rolled. Spinning the rattleback can make it reverse its direction, but then reverse it once again. Essentially the rattleback has very little stability and a lot of asymmetric instability.
Retrieved: 18 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/9PsSR
Tadashi says the world record is 5 reversals?!
First Ever Chiral Tippy Top?
From the same lecture above, Tadashi showcases what he calls the first ever chiral tippy top. It can rise when spun with the right hand but not with the left hand.
Fascinating stuff!
“Physicists” Deny it Existence LOL
Physicists that deny science should be called “Science Deniers”.
MES Possible Mechanism for Tippy Top Chirality
Firstly, here is good standalone video of the chiral tippy top for reference.
Retrieved: 16 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/RsPEk
I have found some similarly shaped spinning tops that also behave both as a tippy tops but also in some cases as chiral tippy tops! You can purchase the ones I have here.
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B07BMZ8Z5H/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Retrieved: 22 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/2Z2U7
I believe the chirality may be coming from an uneven mass distribution that is tapered in a few or more sections of the tippy top. An illustration of this is shown below.
Thus, spinning in the direction of the denser and more broad side should make it flip over but spinning in the opposite direction should be less likely to flip over. I believe spinning, and hence precession, is hindered very slightly when the tapered side is leading the denser and broader side. This idea stems from my gyroscope experiments in that even the slightest hindrance to precession, either in the form of rotational friction or applying a counter precession force, can prevent magical gyro rising. I will be experimenting further to verify if this is the case for the tippy top’s chirality!
Mechanical Demonstration of Phase Transition
Once again from the same lecture, Tadashi gives a very interesting mechanical analogy of a phase transition, such as the transition from a gas to liquid to solid.
When there are a few “atoms”, such as a gas, then swirling the cup will make the balls spin in the direction of the swirling.
When more balls are added, swirling causes the balls to bump into each other and then reverse direction; presumably representing a liquid.
When even more balls are added swirling does not cause the balls to move but instead remain solid.
These are the types of macro scaled illustrations of micro interactions that I find the most interesting!
Euler’s Disk: Interaction Between Spinning, Rolling, Vibration, and Sound
Tadashi also has another toy that has some amazing physics: Euler’s disk. This is essentially a large coin, but the effect is more dramatic and spins for much longer at larger scales. Spinning Euler’s disk generates rolling and increasingly high frequency sound that culminates in a super high frequency wobble but at low spin speed and extremely loud sound.
On a hard surface it can spin for several minutes but when the base is held up, it only spins for a few seconds!!
When spun with a more straight edge it spins for much longer than a more curved edge.
Retrieved: 28 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/0hhZw
Retrieved: 28 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/h7fvQ
Fascinating stuff!
Mainstream “Open Problem” of Magnetic Colliding “Abacus”
Another amazing experiment that Tadashi showcases is the case of colliding spherical balls where the outer 2 balls are strong neodymium magnets. Note that neodymium (Nd) has is a chemical element with an atomic number or proton number of 60.
Retrieved: 20 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/vPEFJ
Colliding the outer magnetic ball into the inner non-magnetized ball bearings causes 2 balls to launch through the other side, i.e. outer magnetic ball and 1 non-magnetized ball.
This pattern holds for as long as the number of non-magnetized ball bearings is not too small (magnetism would be too significant) or too large (magnetism wouldn’t be able to generate enough thrust across the full length. Thus, colliding the outer 2 balls (outer magnet and inner non-magnet) will shoot out 3 balls.
Essentially this can be thought up of as a magnetic “abacus” or ancient counting tool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus
Retrieved: 20 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/LRfLV
Tadashi states that the “cleverest” mathematicians and physicists can’t explain the simple collisions of spherical balls if a few of the balls are magnets; and hence an “open problem”.
Tadashi would have better understanding of nature if he didn’t confuse assumptions with nature itself.
Tim Rowett’s Grand Illusions and Grand Toy Collection
One of the best YouTube channels out there is Tim Rowett’s “Grand Illusions” channel which showcases his impressive toy collection. He has a wide variety of spinning tops and toys, and some of which have provided some very interesting avenues for further scientific exploration.
The Hooey Stick or (Whammy Diddle) Generates Rotation from Vibration
Tim showcases many toys that demonstrate the amazing ability to generate controlled spin and spin direction simply by rubbing a stick upon groves in another. The spin direction and spin speed depend on how the stick is rubbed and also how much force is applied by your finger or thumb to the stick.
Retrieved: 27 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/CHDLJ
Amazing Magnetic Carousal Top
This is one of the most unique spinning tops I have ever seen! It consists of two spinning tops that can be magnetically peg to a see-saw middle piece. Spinning the tops in the same direction causes global precession of the entire set up, but interestingly one of the tops loses spin speed rapidly as the precession rate increases. One point that Tim didn’t mention is that the ”local” precession of the tops is in reverse direction from the spin speed and overall “global” precession.
Retrieved: 27 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/g2WFk
Tim also mentioned that the person that gave him the top is working on a paper to (try to) explain the carousal top!
Intermediate Axis Theorem (or Tennis Racket Theorem)
The intermediate axis theorem (or tennis racket theorem) is the phenomenon that an object is unstable when spun about an axis that is intermediate of two other axes in terms of amount of “rotational inertia” (or “moment of inertia”) that is produced. This is illustrated in the video below, where the image on the right is the unstable one.
Retrieved: 16 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/kUTDL
Extraordinary effects can also be demonstrated!
Retrieved: 26 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/6EF9U
Here is an illustration of the progression the T-handle undergoes during its spin switchover.
Looks like I need my own space station to investigate further!
Micro-Gravity Space Station Fluid Filled Spinning and Symphony of Spheres
There are several amazing videos of experiments performed on the International Space Station (ISS) under near zero gravity, hence micro-gravity, conditions. Some very interesting ones include spin stability testing of fluid filled bottles, and the magic of water.
Medium Thickness Fluid Filled Bottles Are Unstable When Spun on Small Axis
Although an object should be stable when spun upon its small axis (or lowest rotational inertia) according to the intermediate axis theorem, if the object is filled with fluid then something else happens. The following is an illustration of a fluid filled bottle of medium size and thickness that is unstable when spun upon its small axis and instead changes its spin axis until it is spinning upon its large axis (or highest rotational inertia).
Retrieved: 27 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/xM5wr
This is some fascinating stuff! Note that the overall spin direction doesn’t change.
Thin Fluid Filled Bottles are Stable When Spun on Small Axis
For a thin liquid filled bottle, spinning upon its small axis is nonetheless stable.
Symphony of Spheres: Water Bubbles Inside Air Bubble Inside Water Bubble
This is one of the most fascinating experiments ever performed! The notion and illusion of “particles” are made clear…
The Magnus Effect, Coanda Effect, and Lift
The study of gyroscopes, rotation, and gyroscopic inertial lift means that conventional science regarding all things need to be re-examined. And even such phenomena as the magnus effect, the Coanda effect, and conventional lift or flight.
The Magnus Effect (and Long Exposure Photography)
The Magnus effect is the phenomenon in which a spinning objected can curve when traveling in a fluid like air or water. Interestingly, the spin direction and path traveled tend to line up much like the spin vs precession directions of a gyroscope.
Retrieved: 30 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/rIfju
Adding an LED inside the cup and taking a picture with a camera with “long exposure” can capture the spiral path of the spinning cup.
Note that long exposure photography involves a slow camera shutter speed that captures light in a prolonged period of time. Thus, fast moving objects appear blurred while stationary objects are sharp. This allows for the capture of movement with time. Notice the amazing spiral motion which traces a curved “w” pattern in which the loops are upwards or outwards!
The conventional “explanation” for the magnus effect is movement from higher to lower air pressure.
Spinning the cups forward causes the movement to move downwards.
Notice the spiral curved “m” motion in which now the loops are downwards or inwards.
Similarly, the same effect is observed when the cups are spun sideways.
The internet is full of amazing Magnus effect demonstrations done with much larger balls and objects!
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=magnus+effect
Retrieved: 27 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/L6GZb
The Coanda Effect
This is similar to the Magnus effect and involves the complete capture of an object by a moving stream of fluid or gas.
Retrieved: 15 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/q40iQ
Schlieren Optics: Photography and Videography by Detecting Light Refraction
A great visualization of the air flow involved in the Coanda effect is done by what is known as schlieren (German for streak) optics. This technique involves the detection of small changes in light refraction for fluids of different densities, temperature, and pressure. A good illustration of this effect is shown below.
https://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/82296107912
Retrieved: 27 April 2019
Archive: https://web.archive.org/save/https://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/82296107912
Note that the barrier, which is often times a knife’s edge, is used to block diffracted light thus forming shadows at areas of varying densities, such as the smoke around a candle flame.
Some amazing air, fluid, and even sound dynamics can be filmed!
Retrieved: 27 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/2Bgqs
This Harvard YouTube channel has some very amazing experiments!
I will be needing this camera setup to detect some amazing field effects.
Retrieved: 29 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/inGsk
The Mainstream Science of Lift is Still Largely a Mystery
Since objects in rotation (or motion in general) are a mystery, it isn’t surprising to find out that even lift or flight also is. A couple of great videos that illustrate this point are shown below.
Retrieved: 27 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/30brH
Fluid around an object acts to bring it closer, magically of course.
Retrieved: 27 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/DVEam
Viktor Schauberger, Vortices in Nature, the Weissenberg Effect
Another great researcher into nature is Viktor Schauberger, which I have included a link to a book written about his life’s work, and his famous finding that an egg shape moves quicker in a water vortex.
https://archive.org/stream/LivingEnergies/ViktorSchauberger-LivingEnergies#page/n145/mode/2up
Retrieved: 3 May 2018
MES Archive: https://1drv.ms/b/s!As32ynv0LoaIh5oF8yc5skTW_ifLBw
Page 141 (PDF Page 147)
I have tried this experiment and it appears to be the case, although I need to perform more controlled experiments.
Stirring Water Creates a Vortex that Pushes Water Outwards and Inwards
As with gyroscopes, an object can be made to move upwards or downwards depending on the spin conditions, and in this case where the spinning is occurring creates a vortex moving it and any object inside towards the location of spinning. The water is pushed outwards when spun thus creating a vortex moving inwards; keep this in mind for when I discuss Ken Wheeler’s true magnetism.
Retrieved: 27 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Mb08i
Connected Vortices that Travel Forward Together in Water?!
Apparently, a slight disturbance in water can generate two vortices connected together that travel together!
Retrieved: 29 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/O1Kgc
She creates these by simply moving a plate across a pool of very still water.
Notice the ripples and waves in the aether; I mean water.
Interestingly, the vortices are connected underwater and can be seen through dropping some food coloring inside which also amazingly travels with the vortices.
Supposedly, the vortices are seen as two black holes by light refracting through the curved vortex outwards towards the bottom of the pool and back to our eyes with the bright spots around the holes.
Given “Physics Girl’s” previous bogus mockery of tippy top and phi top physics, I will definitely have to investigate this phenomenon further myself.
Weissenberg Effect: Some Liquids Spiral Upwards When Stirred
In contrast to water, for some more viscous fluids, stirring can cause the opposite effect and the fluid rises upwards in a spiral fashion.
Retrieved: 28 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/kTB9r
Note the spiral in the above image has a thin region in the center of its height.
Essentially anything that occurs in nature, the opposite can be done. (Including the effect of gravity).
Anti-Gravity Slinkys, Beads, and Liquids
Apparently, there are a lot more everyday objects that defy gravity.
Toy Slinkys Levitate During Compression
The base of a toy slinky magically levitates as it compresses in midair when it is dropped. In theory, dropping a super tall slinky from an airplane would have the base levitate for minutes?!
Retrieved: 28 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/BWsk5
Chain of Beads Falls by First Rising Upwards
Even simply letting a chain of beads fall from a container demonstrates both anti-gravity effects but also a cool continuous fluid like pouring mechanism that drains out the entire container.
Retrieved: 28 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/o51Fj
Note that as inaccurate (or worse) Veritasium and Steve Mould are, I still have to applaud them for their sheer volume of amazing experiments. Take a lesson here folks, start posting your own experiments and explanations, otherwise gatekeepers will do it for you.
Kaye Effect
Some types of viscous liquids demonstrate some amazing anti-gravity and anti-common sense characteristics. When poured, occasionally jets of faster flowing liquid start to rocket outwards and upwards.
Retrieved: 28 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/bbavK
Sometimes these jet streams form loops.
While other times they form jets of beads.
Fascinating stuff!
Contactless Rotation via the Egely Wheel (or Psi Wheel)
Another baffling rotational phenomenon has brought up many claims of telekinesis and bioenergy, the Egely or Psi wheel. Andrew Johnson goes over a good review of the wheel which can turn by simply placing a hand next to it. The direction depends on which hand is placed and how it is placed.
Retrieved: 25 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/29sDl
For further information check out Andrew Johnson’s website article on the Egely wheel: https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2016/01/04/experiments-with-an-egely-wheel/
To purchase the Egely wheel from the Mr. George Egely himself, go to: https://egelywheel.net/the-story-of-the-vitality-meter/
The Egely wheel is pretty expensive but you can make your own very easily, and with various materials.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=437&Itemid=62
Retrieved: 16 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/WKciL
Retrieved: 16 August 2018
Archive: https://archive.fo/CsWRA
Pendulum Inertial Propulsion
Apparently, pendulums are also as magical as gyroscopes.
Retrieved: 25 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/BQA9l
The very swinging or vibrating of a pendulum can move a car forward, even if it doesn’t have wheels!
Retrieved: 25 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/XrLjy
Magnets in Rotation, Free Energy, and the Late Great Bruce DePalma
What happens if a gyroscope consisted of magnets instead? Since regular gyroscopes can produce over unity torque, magnetic gyroscopes may produce over unity energy. And the late great Bruce DePalma’s “N-Machine” claims to do just that! He also claims that a spinning ball falls faster in a vacuum than a non-spinning ball. After going through his work, and knowing the magic of gyroscopes, I think he is definitely one to study more about!
Retrieved: 24 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/4gVOm
The gyroscope’s most magical property is the ability to baffle the minds of even the most “educated” professors.
The turning point in DePalma’s scientific career came while he was a lecturer at M.I.T., in the late 1960′s when he began pondering the inadequacies of physical explanations regarding the gyroscope. Were there deeper principles operating in the behavior of rotating objects?
Drop Tests for Objects in Rotation and/or Magnetic Repulsion
Recall from the earlier thought experiment chart I made regarding possible paths a dropped object takes depending on its makeup and initial conditions.
These are some very interesting possible experiments which I will look to experiment! The spinning ball test is claimed by Bruce DePalma and the conjoined repulsion magnets setup is claimed by Lockheed Martin’s Boyd Bushman. The spinning magnets in repulsion is the hypothesizing of yours truly!
Bruce DePalma’s Spinning Ball Drop Test Claims a Spinning Ball Moves Faster
The main experiment that pushed former M.I.T. professor Bruce DePalma into the world of real science was his spinning drop test which he claims to have demonstrated a spinning ball moves considerably faster in a vacuum than a non-spinning ball.
https://www.brucedepalma.com/#spinning-ball
Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment
One of the first experiments he did was designed to detect if there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object verses non-rotating object. The idea was actually initiated by a student of DePalma’s and after an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before. It became an educational exercise to see if this variation on Galileo’s big rock verses little rock falling experiment would show any variation in the rate of fall.
At this time DePalma was a senior scientist specializing in photographic sciences with the Polaroid Land Corporation and lecturing part time at M.I.T. His expertise ranged from high speed stroboscopic photography, his mentor was the highly regarded Dr. Harold Edgerton, to Physics and Electrical Engineering. With this background he designed an experiment using two 1 inch diameter ball bearings, one not rotating and one rotating 18,000 rpm produced by a hand router. The assembly then was given a precisely measured thrust and photographed in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light. Repeating this numerous times, and analyzing the parallel trajectories of the ball bearings as documented photographically, did indeed reveal a variation in the gravitational behavior of the rotating ball bearing verses the non-rotating ball bearing. The rotating ball given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster, and hit the bottom of its trajectory before the non-rotating ball bearing. A second test repeatedly demonstrated a small but significant and clearly perceptible effect with a stationary mechanism designed to drop the ball bearings from a height of only six feet.
Boyd Bushman’s Conjoined Magnets in Repulsion Drop Test Claims to Drop Slower
Boyd Bushman, former aerospace engineer for the American billion dollar military contractor Lockheed Martin, claimed that he performed simple drop tests proving that two magnets joined together in repulsion drop slower than an object of the same mass.
Retrieved: 24 May 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/1GMkA
Interestingly, he also confirms the famous John Hutchison’s anti-gravity and field effects experiments that involved firing electromagnetic waves at objects to occasionally make them levitate, set on fire, or fuse with other dissimilar metals.
Dropping a Magnet Tends to Align itself with Earth’s Magnetic Field in Mid-Flight??
Maybe the Lockheed Martin tests are interacting with the Earth’s magnetic field itself…
Retrieved: 10 March 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/rtpeF
In this case, the south pole tends to point upwards since the test was in the Northern Hemisphere.
I have tested this out and it appears to be the case, that the South Pole tends to point upwards, but will have to perform more tests to confirm.
Rotating Alternating Magnetic Polarity Generates Rotation and Heat in Metal
This is an amazing example showcasing rotating magnets can induce heat in other materials, while the magnets themselves don’t get hotter. Even water can be boiled when placed on an aluminum disk.
Retrieved: 14 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/35khu
Note the alternating magnetic polarity.
An aluminum disk rotates in the direction of the rotating magnets.
Smashing Metal Spheres Generates Loud Sound and Heat
Similarly, simply smashing large perfectly spherical steel balls causes a loud sound shockwave and decent amount of heat generation.
Retrieved: 14 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/XyoB4
This heat blast can even burn holes in paper.
Note the ripple-like wave pattern when smashed on a piece of aluminum foil.
True Anti-Gravity Demonstrations and Inventions
There have been many claims of anti-gravity, and some of them very genuine. Interestingly, nearly every inventor was a person not in academia but rather testing out experiments on their own. This helps from over-coming inherent mainstream authoritarian academic top-down pyramid scheme styled peer-reviewed group-think, but at the same time the inventors themselves lacked the rigidness of mainstream scientific documentation to explain exactly how their experiments worked. And even much less, these inventors didn’t convey their knowledge in easily understandable terms. Here at MES, I look to provide easy solutions to these game-changing and very real anti-gravity phenomena.
John Hutchison’s Electromagnetic Levitation and Transmutation of Many Types of Materials
The famous (and eccentric) John Hutchison has demonstrated one of best known effects of “anti-gravity” which involves sending random configurations of electromagnetic waves at all kinds of objects. John had wanted to replicate Nicola Tesla’s (supposedly none-comprehendible) experiments and discovered that different frequencies affected different materials in bizarre and fascinating ways.
One such experiment involved levitating a bowling ball!
Retrieved: 30 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/fWiA9
Even levitating non-magnetic liquids.
Some metal samples were completely ripped apart even forming different elements; i.e. transmutation.
Even fusing dissimilar materials such as wood and steel was demonstrated.
For more videos and info regarding John’s experiments, check out Andrew Johnson’s channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/checktheevidence/search?query=john
Retrieved: 30 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/z8ThY
And of course, much of the “Hutchison Effect” was demonstrated during 9/11 when the towers were turned to dust and the giant Hurricane was steered off the coast. Dr. Judy Wood documents the similarities between John’s work and the hidden 9/11 tech in her flagship book “Where Did the Towers Go?”: https://mes.fm/judywoodbook.
Hurricanes and Tornados Use More Than Just “Wind” to Lift Heavy Trucks and Trailers
Also documented in Dr. Judy Wood’s book is the levitation effects of Hurricanes which is can’t be easily explained away by purely kinetic effects of wind. Some videos of Hurricane lifting strength include throwing around heavy trucks and their trailers like they are toys.
Retrieved: 30 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/W6Rst
Even mainstream scientists are baffled by both tornados and hurricane strength, as well as their most baffling characteristic
which is seemingly selective carrying ability. This is similar to field interference where constructive and destructive interference can occur.
Note that tornados and hurricanes differ mainly from size and location; where smaller wind cyclones and originating on land are more likely to be termed “tornados”.
https://www.livescience.com/19483-texas-tornadoes-toss-18-wheelers.html
Retrieved: 30 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/cjzKT
The first thing that allows them to lift trucks, he said, is that tornadoes generate a serious amount of updraft suction in their cores. This helps to pick things up and get things moving a little. Second, they generate significant amounts of vertical velocity near the core. Instead of having wind blowing in a straight line as with most storms, the three-dimensional nature of tornado wind makes some strange things possible, including picking up vehicles and dropping them in weird places. [Why Aren't There Tornado Safety Building Codes?]
Tornadoes are weird at their core, says Haan. Because of the massive amount of energy, things tend to be chaotic. “One of the things that I haven’t come up with a good answer for is why something gets picked up and another thing doesn’t. We can have a model we test 20 to 30 times, and only two of the times will a vehicle get picked up in the air and fly,” he told Life's Little Mysteries.
An example of this selective (field interference) effect is in the following picture where a Hurricane flipped one car in a parking lot but left the two right beside it literally unscathed!
http://omega-ins.com/protect-car-hurricane/
Retrieved: 30 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/M5GKq
Others have noted the similarities between Hurricanes and electromagnetic field effects.
https://slideplayer.com/slide/5873883/
Retrieved: 30 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/3k33x
How did this car get gently placed on the fence?!
Russian Inventor Demonstrates High Voltage and Rotation Can Generate Anti-Gravity Lift?
If a “simple” spinning top demonstrates clear anti-(mainstream)-gravity abilities, then in all likelihood more “advanced” science can demonstrate true anti-gravitic flying magic! This device by a Russian inventor appears to be the real deal and involves high voltage and my specialty: rotation. I will definitely be looking to replicate this!
@homosymbion/home-built-anti-gravity-device
Retrieved: 24 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/bpjCu
Sound Levitation, Cymatics, and Amazing Field Geometry
The phenomenon of sound and vibration also has some very fascinating “anti-gravity” or levitation abilities.
A vibrating drum or plate at very high frequency sends pulses of sound vibration through the air and when reflected back form an interference pattern of constructive and destructive waves. Thus, objects in the constructive regions can even be levitated!
Retrieved: 29 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/8hACF
Using a schlieren setup, the amazing interference pattern can be seen.
Cymatics, Greek for “wave”, is the capture of these interference or field geometry patterns by placing small particles or liquids on a vibrating plate. Some absolutely amazing patterns can be formed as the particles move according to the field interference schemes and music.
Retrieved: 1 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/7fyx3
Sounds upon liquids has some amazing effects too!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics
Retrieved: 1 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/29RmI
Cornstarch and water solution under the influence of sine wave vibration
Even rotation and vortex like motion can be produced!
Retrieved: 1 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Kj79P
Tesla Coil Can Generate Loud Sound and Even Modulated to Play Music?!
A Tesla coil generating electric lightening is cool enough, but the loud screeching noise can also be modulated to play any music or sound! The interconnectness of sound and electricity is amazing!
Retrieved: 14 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/YQfKV
What Exactly is Gravity, Mass, Magnetism, Electricity, Light, Nature, or Reality?
So far, what I have proved is that removing the veil of the underlying knowledge of the simplest of phenomena is a prerequisite to truly understanding the big picture of what reality, from gravity to magnetism, really is. Thus, it is time to re-examine all of physics, both from mainstream terms and even from prevailing “alternative” terms, which may require a reconciliation of the two; but openness and clarity of mind the essential requirement.
Exploring the Concept of “Center of Mass”
One of the most amazing and overlooked concepts in all of physics is the ability for an object to focus or balance all of its mass on a single tiny point. This definitely needs further MES styled real research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass
Retrieved: 28 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/uxsPt
Eric Laithwaite’s Table of Scientific Analogy
Eric had a great way of using analogies to compare and better understand physical phenomena. In his 5th 1974 Christmas lecture, he produced a great table comparing the similarities between the electrical, magnetic, thermal, and inertial domains.
Retrieved: 1 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/yvAbz
Lecture 5 - The time has come the Walrus said
I have typed up this table for clarity.
Electrical “inductance” is the resistance to a change in electrical current and Eric suggested this is similar to what is happening with gyroscopes. Thus, “intractance” could be viewed as the resistance to a change in acceleration. And for economics, I believe this analogy is also fitting.
Fourth Law of Motion: Intractance?
This is an interesting paper on this phenomenon that suggested Newton’s second law of motion should account for the object’s resistance to acceleration, hence “intractance”.
https://sites.google.com/site/theadamschronicle/home/fourth-law-of-motion
Retrieved: 1 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/7Kime
Fourth Law of Motion
April 23, 1962, Dr. William O. Davis presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society, Washington, DC titled "Some Aspects of Certain Transient Mechanical Systems" It suggested that Newton's second and third laws of motion might not be exactly correct. He propose that the second law was not expressed by the equation:
F = ma ("F" being force, "m" being mass, and "a" being accelleration)
but rather:
F = ma + A(da/dt)
The "A" was defined as a resistance to a change in acceleration (Davis called "intractance") and "da/dt" was the first derivative of acceleration (often called “jerk” or “surge” by physicist).
John Duffield’s Theory of Everything and My Impetus to Study Gyroscopes
John Duffield, like many former mainstream physicists had become disillusioned by overly-complex and flat out wrong mainstream theories on reality, so he came up with his “Theory of Everything”. His theory involves viewing all matter as light that is twisted and kept in place in a small location; thus, effectively all is “light” or one substance by which all things are just different conditions of the same substance.
Interestingly enough, it was this video in which he mentioned that a gyroscope resists twisting that got me thinking, how does it do this exactly? And the mainstream Wikipedia “explanation” of “angular momentum” was clearly not enough; and so began my journey into the wonderful world of gyro-magic!
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=7&part=1&gen=9
Retrieved: 24 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/aSOld
I recommend purchasing his book too!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/RELATIVITY-Theory-Everything-John-Duffield/dp/0956097804
Retrieved: 13 January 2018
Archive: https://archive.is/ccBn4
And as I have detailed in many of my earlier videos, especially in regard to 9/11 and Dr. Judy Wood, there are many online disinfo troll bots, agents, or even just clueless people that have an agenda to maintain the status quo of everything, especially of mainstream (fake) science. This is shown even in the Amazon reviews where I purchased John’s book. Note that only my purchase was verified and while unverified accounts post long essays attacking John.
https://www.amazon.ca/RELATIVITY-Theory-Everything-John-Duffield/dp/0956097804
Retrieved: 25 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/CE8pg
Welcome to the internet! The place where perception is mainly due to the conviction of bots, and the lack of conviction of everyone else.
David LaPoint’s Game Changing Primer Fields
As part of my #FreeEnergy video series, I spent 14 hours reviewing mainstream nuclear and atomic physics, https://mes.fm/freeenergy-playlist. But during the whole time, mainstream nuclear physics, and especially electromagnetism still remained unattainable. Then after coming across David LaPoint’s brilliant “Primer Fields” video series, things started to click. This was the first time I was exposed to true electromagnetism theory; which is far simpler than the overly complicated and convoluted mainstream scattered interpretation.
Supposedly, David was planning on making 7 total videos but only has 3 videos made.
https://www.youtube.com/user/davelapoint777/videos
Retrieved: 27 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/ndYdY
Bowl Shaped Magnetic Fields vs Typical Bar Magnet Model
David LaPoint’s mind-boggling experiments are the result of assuming the basic magnetic structure of permanent magnets and even all matter as intrinsically a pair of two bowl-shaped magnetic fields. Compare this model with the standard bar magnetic field model.
Retrieved: 27 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/IMkhw
The typical bar magnetic model shown above arises from the directions a compass needle points and the orientation of iron filings around a magnet. Nonetheless, a compass points in the same directions about a primer field magnetic bowl structure and the iron filings seem to better fit as well. David LaPoint considers this short sighted view of compass and iron filings orientations as the main reason for the fundamental mistake of mainstream physics in assuming the conventional bar magnet field model.
Overlaying on the iron filings on top of the primer bowls eerily match up as the iron filings are pointing towards the centers of the bowls.
Magnetic Bowls have a Flip Point and Ability to Eject Matter
The magnetic bowls have the amazing ability to launch metallic balls, presuming they are also magnetic or not, with great ejection force.
Retrieved: 27 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/kqtJl
And at a distance away from the bowl is a “flip point” in which the attraction/repulsion reverses.
An illustration of the magnetic structure is shown here.
Magnetic Bowls Can Repel Non-Magnetized Steel Balls
The primer bowl can repel non-magnetized steel balls and even launch them rapidly once they pass through the center of the bowl.
Fundamental Primer Field Model of a Photon and All Matter
Consider the following primer field model for a photon.
A closer view of the photon (shown in green) is modeled as “energy”, which also have the primer field magnetic structure, looping outwards and then back inside.
Retrieved: 27 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/sJjf5
Note that the photon is essentially a ball of energy trapped at the flip point.
Overlapping the model with the energy ball demonstrates this energy flow.
Expanding this model out to all matter, atoms, stars, and even galaxies, the following primer field general magnetic field model is illustrated.
And in a more 3D view, the torus magnetic donut is better illustrated.
Admittingly, David’s model looks much more plausible than the mainstream comical bar magnet assumption for electrons. Note the direction of spin as well by the energy ball, I mean electron.
Primer Field Magnetic Bowls Can Contain Rotating Plasma Ball of Energy and Create Energy Ejections
David LaPoint demonstrates that simply sending electricity to the center of two bowl shaped magnetic fields will form a contained ball of electrical energy, thus effectively demonstrating the basic structure of both photons and stars. At the top and bottom of the magnetic bowls are ejection jets of energy as well. Note also that the plasma ball is rotating, but I’m not sure which direction or if it is always rotating.
When one bowl is removed, a plasma formation can still be held.
The primer bowls can still maintain a plasma ball even if the electrical connection is removed.
Compare the experimental contained energy ball with David LaPoint’s primer field magnetic model.
Also note the overlay of the energy ball with the primer field model of a photon.
Primer Field Electromagnetic Model Can Replace Unnecessary “Black Holes, Dark Energy, & Dark Matter”
Dark energy and dark matter are terms used to describe the unexplained ability of galactic bodies to generate motions, such as matter ejections, far greater than any mainstream theories of “gravity”, while having little direct interactions with light (hence “dark” matter); as well as to explain how massive galactic bodies form in the first place. Whereas a “black hole” is a region that exhibits extremely strong attractive force that no particles or even light can escape.
Essentially the mainstream model of the universe is off by 95%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Retrieved: 1 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/wVnf2
The primer field ability to eject energy and matter at great speeds may also be able to shoot out mainstream dark physics.
Saturn’s Hexagon is No Longer a Mystery!
Recall from #AntiGravity Part 1 in which I went over “Saturn symbolism” to illustrate the eerily placed perfect hexagon on Saturn’s north pole.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/basking-in-light
Retrieved: 29 January 2018
Archive: https://archive.is/GseC4
The hexagon formation is rather indicative of the electromagnetic makeup of all matter.
There’s literally a perfect hexagon formed of steel balls at the center between the primer bowls!
Overlaying the primer field plasma ball on top of Saturn shows its true makeup.
Absolutely amazing!
Primer Fields View of Light
Viewing the photon, or single “quantized particle” of light, but rather as a ball of energy with a primer field magnetic structure illuminates the mystery that is light.
Different wavelengths can be attributed to different primer field sizes.
Light doesn’t “wiggle” but rather measurements of its electrical and magnetic components differ in space.
Light bends because its electromagnetic fields make contact with objects.
Smaller primer fields bend more in a prism.
Primer Fields View of Constructive vs. Destructive Field Interference
What follows from a primer fields model of light is field interactions.
Propagation of light can demonstrate interference patterns as when bent around sharp objects such as this razor blade.
Primer Fields View of Double Slit Experiment and “Particle-Wave Duality”
Is light a particle or a wave? Or is it instead simply interfering with its own electromagnetic field as it passes through a double slit and then reforming afterwards.
Primer Fields View of the Atomic and the Galactic
Hydrogen, the fundamental element consisting of just one proton, has a “wave function”, or quantum probabilistic location where its electron(s) can be, also demonstrates primer field characteristics.
Different primer field configurations represent different wave functions and energy levels of hydrogen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function
Retrieved: 28 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/IS2B3
Even the Milky Way galaxy, which we are in, has regions that show case the primer field structure!
Are black holes just the center of large primer fields?! Interesting to note how the black hole plasma disk surrounding it can also spin rapidly.
Retrieved: 1 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/K5Pzg
Walter Russell and His “Inverse Primer Field” Experiment
Walter Russell was a great researcher and philosopher and wrote extensively about unifying consciousness and science. There are several schools created to preserve and expand upon his work. There was a particular experiment he wrote about that eerily reminds me of David LaPoint’s primer field.
Firstly, recall the spinning plasma formation that can be generated within two primer magnetic bowls.
Walter wrote about forming a magnetic ball of iron filings from two coiled cones of copper with electric current running through them. Researcher Darren Colomb has a photograph of this setup; and which is essentially the inverted case of a primer field. Thus, the stationary magnetic fields can generate a spinning electric ball but conical rotating electric current can generate a stationary magnetic ball?!
Retrieved: 17 January 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/I3wah
Fascinating stuff!
Hexagons Appear Everywhere!
The first time I saw Saturn’s hexagon, I knew for a fact that it was not and could not be just a “random” natural phenomenon. I initially took upon a more “conspiratorial” viewpoint, but David LaPoint’s primer fields suggests it is more of a fundamental aspect of reality.
Pouring ferrofluid inside the magnetic primer bowls showcases perfect hexagons.
Such perfect hexagons that appear also in honeycombs.
https://buramhoney.eu/honeycomb-hexagon/
Retrieved: 27 April 2018
Archive: https://archive.li/dLrxY
The fundamental reason for hexagons appearing may be due to the fact that a circle in the middle of other circles fit most compactly inside a hexagon shape.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing_number_problem
Retrieved: 22 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/Ccrd5
And packing spheres is most tightly packed in hexagons or tilted triangle/cubic formations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing_of_equal_spheres
Retrieved: 22 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/UtBCo
Graphene is a form of carbon composed of a single layer of carbon atoms in a hexagonal lattice; shown in the scanning electron microscope image below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene
Retrieved: 23 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/pmnPZ
Even a poliovirus, as shown in a transmission electron microscope, has some very interesting circular / hexagonal arrangements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_electron_microscopy
Retrieved: 23 December 2018
Archive: http://archive.fo/1uesq
There are many more hexagons in nature, corporate logos, and even real times sports but you may have to pay close attention.
What is the True Magnetic Field Model?
In the making of this video, and even throughout my whole life, I assumed the typical “north to south” magnetic field model was straight forward until I came across David LaPoint’s Primer Fields video series. But even with his model, he had not elaborated or defined the exact nature of the magnetic bowls he used in his experiments. Instead he has demonstrated that bowl shaped magnets can contain an energy ball, but without defining exactly what “energy” or “electricity” is and how it compares with magnetism. Essentially, he provided game-changing experiments but left the explanation as just an intrinsic property of two bowl shaped magnetic fields; and hence all matter.
He also assumed the flow of the magnetic field line was circular as it loops around to the other bowl. But after coming across Tim Vanderelli’s ferrocell and Ken Wheeler’s theory on magnetism, I believe Ken may very well have formulated the true representation of a magnet.
Permanent Magnets are Formed by Electrocuting Metal
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of a magnet is the process by which it is made. Literally sending high electromagnetic “charge” to a lump of metal can make it permanently magnetized. Thus, effectively it can be seen as an electric self-reciprocating dynamo! Note also that heating metal makes it more “accepting” of electromagnetic fields but heating a magnet can act to remove its magnetic field.
Retrieved: 16 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/2JyeM
Typical Mainstream Magnetic Field Model
The typical mainstream model for a magnetic field is a bar magnet with curved field lines between supposedly two “poles”.
Retrieved: 4 May 2019
Archive: https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.topperlearning.com/answer/a-what-are-magnetic-field-lines-how-is-the-direction-of-a-magnetic-field-at-a-point-determined-b-draw-field-lines-around-a-bar-magnet-along-its-length/br9v335nn
Iron Filings Become Bar Magnets Themselves and In a Fixed Position Upon a Magnetic Field
The mainstream magnetic field lines are usually demonstrated by iron filings upon a bar magnet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism
Retrieved: 2 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/TPIAT
It is important to note that the iron filings turn into mini bar magnets themselves when in the presence of a magnetic field and thus repelling and attracting the iron filings nearby. This may explain why there are gaps in between these “lines” and why the filings are rigid and fixed in space.
Recap of David LaPoint’s Primer Field Bowl Shaped Magnetic Field Model
Earlier I went over David’s bowl shaped primer field magnetic structure and showed that it was similar to the bar magnet model in that the magnetic lines are assumed to be circular or curved linear, which may also be a result of modeling it after the orientation of the iron filings.
The 2D iron filings fixed geometry due to the iron filings becoming magnets themselves gives the impression of basic curved linear lines, and hence why David LaPoint’s primer bowls show case this property as well.
The Ferrocell Exhibits a Different Magnetic Field
I first came across the amazing ferrocell on Ken Wheeler’s YouTube channel, which I will cover shortly. The ferrocell involves dispersing a few small drops of liquid filled with small amounts of super small nano-sized magnetic particles into a transparent layer between glass lens less than 15 microns thick.
Note the measurement scales:
- 1 m
- 100 cm
- 1000 mm
- 1,000,000 micrometers or μm
- 1,000,000,000 nanometers or nm
Inventor of the Ferrocell Tim Vanderelli and Ferrocell USA
The inventor of the ferrocell and holder of its trademark, Tim Vanderelli, documents many of the properties of the ferrocell on his site ferrocell.us. The ferrocell is also available for purchase on his website.
Here is an example of a typical ferrocell and how sunlight passes through it.
http://www.ferrocell.us/intro.html
Retrieved: 2 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Azp75
Placing a magnet underneath the ferrocell while shining light at it reveals never before seen holographic geometry of magnets!
http://www.ferrocell.us/home.htm
Retrieved: 2 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/ylCi4
These are not typical fields from iron filings. And note the “black holes” where the “poles” are located.
http://www.ferrocell.us/experiments.html
Retrieved: 2 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/src9K
Note also the 3D “bowls” that are formed at the “poles”.
The center of a ring magnet is amazing!
The field geometry is essentially being formed in empty “space”! Note that the apparent intersecting counter rotating lines.
Comparison of a Ferrocell Field vs. Typical Iron Filings
Superimposing the ferrocell field on top of an iron filings field demonstrates the stark difference between the two fields. The ferrocell lines appear to be looping around and away from two “black holes” while the iron filings are lining in chains pointing towards these black holes, and hence “poles”.
http://www.ferrocell.us/intro.html
Under a 400X zoom, the chain-like orientation of the nano-particles can be seen.
Timm Vanderelli provides some insight as to the difference in field geometry.
http://www.ferrocell.us/q-a%20faq.html
Retrieved: 2 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/ilq77
Ferrocell Q&A - FAQ's
Q: I'm confused. Why doesn't the Ferrocell show the same geometry as iron filings or FEMM plots?
A: There is much debate and speculation on this issue and I imagine it will be a long time before we have a 100% solid answer. For one thing, iron filings are ferromagnetic. They become little magnets themselves when exposed to a magnetic field and most of the computer simulations are made from such ancient studies. We see their maximum potential as they align with the field and each other. However, the magnetite nanoparticles inside the cell are paramagnetic (actually, super-paramagnetic) and can not be magnetized in the same manner as expressed by Classical Physics. They tend to 'flutter about' without a polarization until, over time they form into microscopic 'chains'. These chains become susceptible to the influence of a magnetic field when they reach domain size. The best way I can describe a Ferrocell is to imagine a diffraction grating or nano-scale periodic surface that is dynamic instead of fixed on a substrate. The same laws of diffraction apply, only the cell has 4 more degrees of freedom than a substrate-based lens or a refractive surface. The particles are always moving even when the magnetic field is stationary! I state until proven otherwise, we are seeing the lowest potential of the field, which is the lowest point a super-paramagnetic particle can reach. This is a null region, or the Bloch Wall.
For more information and greater details, see : http://www.ferrocell.us/references.html
Quick notes on mainstream magnetic terms:
- Magnetism = Magic
- Ferromagnetism: strongest and most common type of magnetism and in which magnetic attraction tends to retain in the material when an applied magnetic field is removed.
- Paramagnetism: materials that are weakly attracted towards applied magnetic fields.
- Superparamagnetism: super small magnets exhibiting strong magnetization like ferromagnets but dissipates when applied magnetic field is removed like paramagnets.
- Diamagnetism: term used to describe materials that are repelled by applied magnetic fields; unlike attractive ferromagnets and paramagnets.
- Bloch Wall: The narrow transition region which magnetic field switch directions; Ken refers to this as the “plane of inertia”.
Moving Nano-Particles in Ferrocell Showcase Path of “Magnetic Field”?
Essentially, I believe the biggest difference between iron filings and the ferrocell is that the particles in a ferrocell are moving and hence can actually show the true direction travelled along the “magnetic field”. And the “black holes” may in fact be “sinks” where the mini-bar magnetic iron filings are pointing towards while fixed in space.
Magnets in Repulsion Under a Ferrocell Exhibit an Extra “Black Hole” or “Sink”
Further comparing iron filings vs. the ferrocell, we see that even in repulsion, “like” poles don’t repel directly but rather appear to be separated by another “black hole” or “sink” (sink to what?).
https://magnetismtoroidaldynamics.com/
Retrieved: 26 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/aXqID
Magnets in Attraction Under a Ferrocell Demonstrate Field Lines Repelling
When the magnets are placed such that they have opposite “polarity”, under a ferrocell the field lines are actually repelling while the magnets attract towards each other.
The Top View of Magnets Are Very Similar for Different Shapes Under a Ferrocell Even for the Center Empty Space of Ring Magnets!
Comparing the ferrocell geometry of the top of a cube magnet with that of a ring magnet appear to be displaying very similar geometry!
Retrieved: 6 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/7fuMh
Note the “black holes” in the side view of a ring magnet!
Note that adding extra magnets appears to just shift the magnetic field magically further yet hold the same field geometry.
Comparing the above ring magnet fields with a square magnet shows near exact field geometry!
Retrieved: 24 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/EuL3w
Ken discusses this amazing property of magnets to display the same field geometry both in its own volume or in empty space itself. Thus, the question that arises, if the magnet is not directly “carrying” this field geometry, then what is? (The aether of course).
Retrieved: 3 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/BQRzs
Proper Magnetic Setup Can Exhibit Rotational Light Effects When Lasers are Directed to a Ferrocell
Applying 4 magnetic fields can generate a rotating light display without mirrors. I will have to experiment with this myself, as unfortunately their website does not present their experiments in any easily viewable format.
http://www.ferrocell.us/EDU%20Experiment.html
Retrieved: 3 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/hvHRx
Brian Kerr’s Amazing BitChute Channel Demonstrating the Ferrocell
Brian Kerr has some of the best ferrocell videos with all kinds of magnetic setups. He used to be on YouTube, but the recent YouTube censorship of alternative news channels pushed him to move to the censorship resistant BitChute.
Retrieved: 26 April 2019
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190426224614/https://www.bitchute.com/video/sPuksi2FrrGd/
Purchase or Create Your Own Ferrocell!
You can purchase various sizes and types of ferrocells at Tim Vanderelli’s site. I got the small version but will look to create my own super giant supercell in the very near future!
http://www.ferrocell.us/products.html
Retrieved: 2 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/NvyeE
Ken Wheeler also has a few videos on how he makes his own version of the ferrocell.
https://www.youtube.com/user/kathodosdotcom/search?query=create+ferrocell
Retrieved: 2 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/QkOcn
Make Your Own Ferrocell with a Drop of Blood?!
Ken Wheeler demonstrates that even a single drop of blood in a small mixture of “Mouse Milk” penetrating oil can showcase the magnetic field geometry just as does a ferrocell! Ken also makes a great point in that this can theoretically be a simple way to visualize and detect impurities or diseases just by seeing the magnetic field geometry of any blood sample.
Retrieved: 15 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/qxWLz
Ken Wheeler’s True Magnetism Theory
Ken Wheeler is one of the most eccentric and overly talkative people on the internet. Most of his time he is ridiculing mainstream “particle physicists” whom he refers to as “atomists” or even disrespectfully refers to mathematicians as “bean counters”. Other times he is discussing photography and arguing about the latest camera technology. But interspersed between all of these incoherent rants, are quite frankly the closest (public) explanation as to the true nature of magnetism. But unfortunately, he over focuses on his despise of famous mainstream scientists, especially of Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, instead of making his findings more comprehendible or coherent.
He has hundreds of videos on magnetism on his channel “Theoria Apophasis”.
https://www.youtube.com/user/kathodosdotcom/search?query=magnetism
Retrieved: 30 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/s3lkk
MES Criticism of Ken Wheeler’s Incoherent Rants Both in his Videos and his Book on Magnetism
Ken outlines his theory on magnetism in his book “Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism”. But even in this book, he dedicates far too much text to trashing mainstream science while incoherently and sporadically making out-of-context statements with out-of-place definitions thus making it unnecessarily difficult to comprehend what in the world he is talking about! And all the while he repeats the same line that magnetism is so “simplex” that even a child can understand. Had I not already known that mainstream science falls short, and instead came across Ken’s works beforehand, likely I would’ve sided with the atomists…
Presentation of knowledge and character matter as much as the actual information presented.
If you can get in contact with Ken, please tell him to tone down the rhetoric and to present his work in a linearly logical manner with definitions appearing before conclusions made. Maybe then, he can apply his “Platonic retroduction logic” to humbly realize that his “discoveries” have been known and perfected, albeit without public disclosure, for far longer than he has cared to fathom.
Furthermore, an example of some of the most disrespectful rants by Ken Wheeler is shown in the following video where his nonetheless interesting concepts of creating vector force cancellation hence “anti-gravity” are minimized by his ridicule of not only mainstream science in general, but humanity in general, and even the only people that actually watch his videos: the “fringe”, “conspiratorial”, “free energy”, “UFO”, “New Age”, and “Anti-Gravity” people which he denigrates in an incoherent rage.
Retrieved: 1 June 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/R6wxY
Criticism aside, his unique character and mental toughness in the face of immense mainstream fake science and clueless “skeptics” attacking him for simply stating unconventional scientific theories, has given him the extra edge to persevere in the pursuit of coherent truth and with the ultimate judge being his very subconscious soul. And this truth may very well be the true nature of magnetism, gravity, electricity, and dielectricity; all of which are different expressions of the same aether.
https://ia802502.us.archive.org/31/items/magnetism1small/magnetism1small.pdf
Retrieved: 2 May 2019
MES Local Download Link: https://1drv.ms/b/s!As32ynv0LoaIh8Ag5IBf1AsZVVobFg
MES Quick Summary of Ken Wheeler’s Theory of Magnetism
To put Ken’s view of magnetism and universal physics in simple terms, I believe the following summary is adequate, at least for this section on areas of further research.
All is the aether (which he refers to as ether or simply just inertia). All visible physical phenomena and matter are a result of 4 aether field “modalities” or pressure mediations or ripples or motions in the aether; just like waves in water interfering constructively or destructively with other waves in water. These principle modalities are:
- (1) Spatial or radiating outwards.
- (2) Counterspatial or radiating inwards.
- (3) Circular.
- (4) Radial or moving linearly from a point.
These field modalities are illustrated in page 35 of his book.
These modalities are either “generating” thus compacting this aetheric pressure or “radiating” it outwards from a specific location or point source thus “rarefying” or releasing this aetheric pressure. The interactions of these modalities form the basis of all concepts of energy and matter; all of which leverage the aether as the fulcrum. These interactions are present in 3 fundamental field conjugate pairs of physical phenomena that make up the universe. Each phenomenon necessitates its conjugate.
- (1) Spatial – Counterspatial
- (2) Centrifugal – Centripetal
- (3) Charge - Discharge
These interactions and relative combinations are illustrated in page 129.
Dielectricity: The Fundamental Counterspatial Field Modality
Much of Ken’s theory hinges on a virtually unspoken of field modality; except in the case of forgotten true scientists such as Tesla, Dollard, Steinmetz et al, and which needs to be understood before trying to grasp Ken’s magnetism. “Dielectricity” is the fundamental field modality and is defined as radial, centripetal, and counterspatial; essentially the aether in compression towards to a point source.
A good illustration of this concept is the amazing torus ring slinky.
Retrieved: 7 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/EB6JS
The slinky is the aether.
The dielectric field modality is the inwards compacting of the slinky such that it has no volume. This state represents unmanifested “space” (i.e. counterspace), or increasing inertia, or mainstream “dark matter”. A more accurate view instead of the flattened disk would be an infinite number of invisible points.
MES BOMBSHELL REALIZATION: Counterspace is Located in the Same Place as Thoughts and Abstractions
The notion of “counterspace” which has no “spatial” magnitude or volume yet underlies the entire visible universe was originally difficult to grasp, until I realized its equivalent: “thoughts”. Everything we do, create, and make visible is based on ideas or thoughts “inside” our heads. But are these invisible thoughts actually inside our heads? Are the abstractions of love, fear, greed, or anger physically somewhere? They do exist, that is without question, because otherwise what other point is there to life?
A drawing is a manifestation of the image being thought of.
Thus feelings, ideas, concepts, and thoughts underly the entirety of the visible world but also are themselves the necessary tools to see, visualize, and makes sense of the visible world. But where are these invisible ideas located?
The visible is a manifestation of the invisible.
Actions are manifestations of thoughts.
Space is a manifestation of counterspace.And vice versa.
The location of all things that don’t have magnitude in the visible are located in counterspace.
The Torus Ring Slinky Analogy of the Aether and 4 Main Aetheric Fields: Dielectricity, Magnetism, Electricity, and Gravity
Magnetism is the slinky protruding outwards while decreasing in inertia, decreasing in counterspace, but increasing in and making up of what we see as “space” or the visible universe. Any centrifugal outwards motion requires a centripetal inwards motion.
Electricity is a hybrid of magnetism and dielectricity.
With this view gravity is also a hybrid of the dielectric field and magnetism and can be viewed as a dielectric “condensate”, or a locally compressed region of the centripetal and counterspacial dielectric field inside a magnetic-dielectric field.
I highly recommend you purchase multiple torus slinkys!
https://www.amazon.ca/Bracelet-Sensory-Interactive-Stainless-Educational/dp/B07PG7VCYD
Retrieved: 7 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/9Bd0k
One Counterspace and Infinite Space
From page 137 of this book, Ken has a good illustration of the notion of counterspace and projections of counterspace as manifested by space. Many forms or projections of the same counterspacial aetheric field modality, or piece of paper.
https://ia802502.us.archive.org/31/items/magnetism1small/magnetism1small.pdf
Bismuth, Hypercube, and “Anti-Cube” as Examples of the Dielectric Counterspace
Ken elaborates on the notion of “counterspace” on page 110 with a “hypercube” or inwards collapsing “anti-cube”; and which is exhibited by the element bismuth. The ferrocell may very well be demonstrating this “counterspatial” field geometry, hence the dielectric, and is the opposite or inverse of magnetism.
On page 108, Ken further illustrates this concept by comparing an iron cube with the bismuth “anti-cube”. Thus, magnetism represents space or volume, and the dielectric represents “counterspace” or the potential for space.
On page 112 Ken shows a micro-sized example of hypercube formations; although I couldn’t find the source for this exact photo and since Ken doesn’t reference from where he got it or even state what the material is.
Always reference your works to remove guesswork!
Nature’s Two Principles of Operation: Force and Motion & Inertia and Acceleration
On page 30, Ken outlines the connection between force, motion, inertia, and acceleration as they pertain to dielectricity and magnetism. Dielectric “voidance” or regions of low aetheric field pressure results in increasing acceleration towards this void while spatial movement lowers; thus, inertia and acceleration increase as required work or centripetal force decreases to maintain this inwards motion and spatial footprint.
On the contrary, increasing field movement or motion as in centrifugal magnetism, thus giving spatial polarized volume, results in decreasing acceleration and more force or work required to sustain motion as centripetal dielectric voidance increases opposite the motion; hence “counter-voidance”.
Thus, essentially a magnet is a magneto-dielectric dynamo that pushes out aetheric field pressure and spirals back to the void that gets created from the starting point; much like the torus spring slinky acts centripetally against increased centrifugal applied force.
Ken’s Genuine Model of a Permanent Magnet
From page 157, Ken illustrates his genuine model of a magnet. It took me a long time to grasp what in the world Ken was ranting about because not only is he among the worst explainers ever, but he doesn’t even comment on apparent differences between the illustrations he uses.
I believe that the model shows the blue dielectric field compression counterspatial field modality being twisted or torqued such that rotational and hence centrifugal motion is generated that pushes the dielectric outwards, hence “loss” of inertia or dielectricity or counterspace; and which Ken calls this centrifugal field modality true magnetism. Since the dielectric is always acting inwards from all directions, any centrifugal motion essentially generates a “sink” or “drain” that necessitates centripetal motion on both sides of the “poles”. Thus, the dielectric being rotated or “torqued” at a point source (with the aether itself as the fulcrum), will generate a spiraling torus as the centrifugal motion itself also gets sucked in on both “poles” due to the resulting centripetal dual vortex. The resulting polarization of centrifugal and centripetal motions or pressure mediations resulting from the “loss” of counterspace forms what we perceive as “space”.
Space is the loss of counterspace; and vice versa.
Thus, increasing the strength of magnetism is akin to increasing the dielectric compression, centrifugal rotation, and resulting centripetal dual vortex; which should result in a bigger “black hole” but interestingly smaller overall magnetic torus. Increasing the vertical length along the poles of a magnet will result in a plane of centripetal rotation at the center of the magnet, hence the dielectric plane, and well defined dual bowls of centrifugal spiraling motion reciprocating back centripetally towards the “poles” or “black holes” thus reentering counterspace.
On page 32, Ken presents a more well defined illustration of a magnet, presumably by assuming an adequate vertical pole-to-pole length, which shows the dielectric inwards rotating pressure, the resulting centrifugal and centripetal vortices. Note that in the second image, I have corrected the bottom centripetal vortex direction. Essentially magnetic “polarity” is based on the field spin directions.
Recall remark from the Wikipedia narrative regarding Eric Laithwaite’s statement that there are “3 types of magnetism” and which is eerily similar to the above 3 types of magnetism:
- (1) Centripetal rotation and hence the “dielectric inertial plane”.
- (2) Centrifugal outwards spiraling vortices.
- (3) Centripetal inwards spiraling vortices.
Another diagram on page 62 shows that the centrifugal magnetism can wrap around the full magnet towards the centripetal side if it is strong enough to overcome the dielectric plane.
On page 187, Ken shows what happens if the centrifugal magnetism is not strong enough to overcome the dielectric plane, and thus loops back into itself.
On page 145, Ken makes an analogy that a permanent magnet can be thought up as the merger of high and low pressure weather cycles but superimposed on each other.
On page 93, Ken shows a magnetic stirrer water vortex analogy of the electrification involved in creating a magnet. Essentially a “permanent” magnet can be viewed as creating a magnetic vortex and then turning the electricity off, which for water the vortex goes back to the still water state after a few seconds but for a magnet takes a much longer time, even years, before losing its magnetic vortex towards the counterspatial dielectric compression centripetal fundamental high inertia field modality.
On page 64 he illustrates the centrifugal and centripetal directions from the top of a magnet.
This is illustrated further on page 67.
Experiments with Magnets, Ferrocell, CRT Tube, and Even Gyroscopes Validate Ken’s Magnetism
For as much as I criticize Ken for his lack of coherent explanations regarding what he is talking about, he has nonetheless presented experiments that all but validate his theory on magnetism.
On page 91, Ken shows that under a magnetic “viewing film” the dielectric plane can be seen and is always at the center of any magnetic center; hence it does not actually exist at a distinct location since it is always changing based on the magnets’ location.
Further elaboration on the magnetic field of two conjoined magnets is shown in the following insightful video using the ferrocell.
Retrieved: 7 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/UbvOa
Also, on page 80 to 81 (and accompanying video at 
) Ken shows that a broken ring magnet will reverse polarity when attached back together. The felt markings indicate that this half used to be on the reverse side before it was split.
Under a viewing film, the dielectric plane of the reattached ring magnet is shown from top view connecting the broken sections and at side view as a dielectric cross.
With an unbroken magnetic, compare the difference.
On page 80, Ken refers to this changing dielectric plane as “seeking” the smallest space possible; i.e. centripetal counterspatial compression. Thus, splitting a magnet into many pieces will naturally cause the magnets to move towards the smallest center possible and thus form a sphere; hence space wants to move towards centripetal counterspace. Also note that Ken refers to any “electric energy” phenomena including electricity, lightening, charge, etc., to be dielectric in nature and thus always flow to mediate pressure, like streams of water; and the loss of this energy gives a spatial magnitude and is magnetism.
On page 78 (and in the same accompanying video as in the above illustrations), Ken demonstrates “dielectric self-folding” or better put as the tendency of magnetic or induced magnetic objects to “seek” the lowest dielectric “torque” or pressure; hence the dielectric plane is the prime mover, and magnetism an “attributed secondary” or as Ken often says “dielectricity is the master behind the puppet show that is magnetism”. Note also that Ken refers to “magnetic induction” as actually “dielectric coherency”. The magnet on the left aligns parallel with the dielectric plane because of its own coherent dielectric plane. The non-magnetized but still induced magnetic steel disk lines up perpendicular to the dielectric plane, thus seeking the least “dielectric torque”. Interestingly, and which I will explore later in this video, Ken also refers to this as the same mechanism behind gyroscopic inertia; gyroscopic rotational centrifugal force is generating centripetal dielectric counterspatial torque at the center?!
This contrast between the perpendicular induced magnetism steel coin and the parallel permanent magnet to the dielectric plane looks eerily similar to the ferrocell vs. iron filings (which become mini magnets themselves) field geometry.
On page 23, the dielectric plane showcases its compressive nature as ferrofluid is pushed inwards.
Interestingly, I found a video on YouTube regarding a ferrite ring (which is a form of iron and is weakly attracted to magnetic fields, hence “paramagnetic”), presumably a thing plate of steel, and two magnets stuck together. When the magnets are placed outside the ferrite ring, they can attract the steel plate but at the outer edges presumably perpendicular to the “dielectric plane”.
Retrieved: 1 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/DVFdf
When the magnets are placed inside the ferrite ring there is no longer attraction to the steel plate. In this setup, I suppose the dielectric plane would be above the magnets hence only the top will experience significant induced magnetism.
From page 160 (and his accompanying video: 
), Ken demonstrates the magnetic centrifugal vortex and counter centripetal inwards vortex by placing a magnet next to at cathode-ray tube (CRT) television. A CRT tube shoots out electrons onto the screen which the magnet causes to deflect. Notice how the image on the outer edge rotates clockwise while the inner image rotates counterclockwise.
And vice versa on the opposite pole of the magnet, the outer edge is rotating counterclockwise while the inwards vortex is clockwise.
On page 162 (and accompanying video 
), the dielectric plane, centrifugal, and centripetal vortices can be visualized.
The earlier ferrocell all but confirms Ken’s theory. Notice the torus donut spiraling outwards and then back in on itself just like the torus ring slinky.
http://www.ferrocell.us/experiments.html
Note that Ken refers to the CRT tube TV set as an “dielectric discharge device” and hence the centrifugal magnetism pushes the dielectric discharge, supposedly the “electrons”, away towards the outer edge and accumulating in the center. The reverse of this is in a ferrocell where the nano-particles are attracted to the magnetic “lines”, which Ken refers to as not merely lines but field interference patterns between the magnetic and dielectric aetheric field modalities, and hence light is directed at the constructive magnetic regions; while leaving a black hole in the dielectric center. The following video elaborates further on this.
Retrieved: 18 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/gUjF3
A copper gyroscope stops spinning supposedly due to Lenz’s “Law” or induced magnetism at the edge of a magnet but spins unhindered at the center; thus, further suggesting that the magnetism at the center and edge are qualitatively different. Ken doesn’t explain this in much detail, but it would be good to know if this behavior is the same on the other “pole” of the magnet, and at different spin directions, or other conditions. Note also that this particular video had a great deal of “critics” unthinkingly “explaining” this phenomenon by stating terms such as “Lenz’s Law”, “Eddy Currents”, or “Lines of Force” but without actually stating much beyond these magical all-encompassing terms; similar to the bogus “angular momentum” non-explanation for gyroscopes. Unfortunately, Ken doesn’t do any favors by assuming people understand his often incoherent videos, and he makes a follow-up video, 
, talking about the replies instead of elaborating further on the actual mechanics involved.
Retrieved: 16 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/2KiN8
Near the edge the flywheel stops quickly in about 5 seconds.
On page 22, and accompanying video 
, Ken shows that a specific ferro-fluid suspension, in presumably oil, has about a 25 second window that shows the centripetal downwards vortex inside an (albeit hard to see so you’ll have to take Ken’s word for it) outer centrifugal vortex; much like a water spout (or tornado above water) can form by spiraling downwards in two counter-rotating vortices.
Note that supposedly the mainstream centripetal tornado vortex is generated from downwards cold air, and the centrifugal vortex is from rising warm air.
On page 227, Ken references the YouTuber TinManPower (youtube.com/user/TinManPower/videos) and his experiments showing that electrolysis (applying direct electric current to drive chemical reactions), in this case supposedly in ionizing water, with a permanent magnet creates a spiral vortex but not with a regular “electromagnet” (which is a coil of wire that acts as a magnet when electric current passes through it).
Tim also has created his own underwater magnetic motor?! Note that another YouTuber posted a similar motor but includes also precession of the spinning magnet: 
.
Ken also mentions (but doesn’t reference who) another YouTuber shows hydrogen bubbles in a very distinct vortex formation during electrolysis.
A magnetic ball, or even non-magnetized steel ball, gets launched to the outer edge of a strong magnet. The YouTuber “Brainiac75” suggests that the ball moves to the “stronger magnetic field” but the demonstration rather shows that the “magnetism” at the center and outer edge are not the same and instead show a wave like push outwards. If it were just a “stronger magnetic field at the edge”, it still wouldn’t explain why the ball gets launched superfast outwards and especially doesn’t account for the relatively far distance from the center of the large magnet.
Retrieved: 1 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/3TTby
Interestingly, even throwing (presumably copper) wire at the large magnet gets attracted to the outer edge; suggesting again that there is a stark difference from the center and the outer edge in the very nature of magnetism. The wire placed on the outer edges should suggest some “dampening” of the conventional magnetic field strength but nonetheless the wire still attracts towards the edge even wrapping around the previous wire several times over.
Furthermore, interesting strength tests show that taller magnets have stronger magnetic strength readings at the “poles” while shorter magnets have stronger magnetic strength readings at the sides; once again pointing towards Ken Wheeler’s true magnetic field model that suggests the dielectric plane plays a more significant role as the magnetism is stretched vertically.
Note that for the wide magnet, the outer edge shows about 4X time the field strength reading than at the center.
For the tall magnet (I presume it is made of two magnets joined together), the field strength is about 2 times the reading at the center. Note that a good experiment to explore would be to have a magnet geometry such that the center and outer edge strength readings are identical; which I believe will nonetheless launch the ball to the outer edge since it’s the type of magnetism that is more important.
The above demonstrations of the differences in measured field strength from the top, the sides, the center, and the outer edges may very well be better illustrated by the following experiment by Ken Wheeler involving ferrofluid. Note the hourglass shape as the ferrofluid presumably attracts the “centrifugal magnetism” and thus the plane of inertia or dielectric plane is shown at the cross section of the magnet.
Retrieved: 1 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/romDk
Placed on top of the magnet, the torus shape is shown suggesting that the “stronger magnetic field strength readings at the edge” (note the unattracted corners of the magnet) is not actually the prime reason for the ferrofluid being pushed outwards, but rather that there is a repulsive zone at the center; or centripetal inwards vortex that the ferrofluid is pushed away by.
Comparison Between Magnetic Models
Interestingly, a peer-reviewed paper has been made regarding the ferrocell and which asks why the geometry is made and why it is different than typical magnetic filings. They had an interesting superimposition of the ferrocell spiral geometry with the typical circular conventional magnetic field model.
https://www.mdpi.com/2410-3896/4/2/35/htm
Retrieved: 4 May 2019
Archive: https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.mdpi.com/2410-3896/4/2/35/htm
Combining the magnetic model above, as well as with all the models previously shown, the following great comparison is made.
Out of all these models, only Ken Wheeler’s model accounts for the spiral geometry and apparent “black holes” demonstrated by the ferrocell; albeit David LaPoint primer bowls alludes to the structure of black holes as well but rather less directly. And especially only Ken’s ferrocell accounts for motion of the nano-particles in the ferrocell.
The Sport of Basketball Matches with Ken’s Magnetism #MESDuality
One of the main driving forces behind my game-changing #MESDuality concept is that the same patterns always appears, even in the least likely places.
https://www.si.com/nba/photo/2016/02/03/power-ranking-all-30-nba-floor-designs#30
Retrieved: 19 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/xwQgb
The typical basketball court from overhead literally looks like the magnetic field geometry under a ferrocell.
Even the circle at center court is shown in magnetic repulsion.
Even the basketball itself shows perfect magnetic primer field bowls with dielectric plane and ejection jet lines.
https://www.thescore.com/news/1490474-report-seized-docs-implicate-numerous-prominent-ncaa-players
Retrieved: 19 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/mBuk4
Note also the black and white clothes of typical referees (ala stereotypical prisoner outfits) which represent the duality by which we must follow the rules in order to participate in the game of life.
Are you now understanding the illusion we call reality?
Basketball involves 2 teams (duality) of 5 players, hence 10 players in total (duality), that their aim is to score in the other team’s hoop (or black hole) which just so happens to have spiral interference pattern just like the ferrocell. Centrifugal spiral represents shooting the ball upwards to the hoop, and centripetal spirals represents the ball falling through the black hole.
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-19000261-super-slow-motion-shot-basketball-going-into
Retrieved: 19 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/eu2PP
Image URL:
Image URL Archive: http://archive.fo/91FIH
Although sometimes we get caught up in the seemingly real drama of life, keep in mind it is as real as the game of basketball; which is non-more exemplified by the emotional electricity that can be grasped when watching Toronto Raptor’s Kawhi Leonard score a game 7 winning buzzer-beater after a few seconds of perfect silence as the crowd witnessed the ball bounce for what seemed eternity before it ultimately fell in; and fell in to thunderous applause. Yes, it is all a show, but what a show indeed!
Retrieved: 19 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/FgkFa
Now as per #MESDuality, all things must line up with all things, thus the seemingly “coincidental” matching up of the game of basketball with the true fundamental nature of magnetism requires practical explanations as well. Thus, the very game of basketball must have been invented by a person that knew full well the dualistic nature of reality or at least indoctrinated in a system of traditions that followed it, i.e. Freemasons of course…. LOL #ButOfCourse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Naismith
Retrieved: 19 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/waK5q
James Naismith
James Naismith (November 6, 1861 – November 28, 1939) was a Canadian-American physical educator, physician, Christian chaplain, sports coach, and innovator.[1] He invented the game of basketball at age 30 in 1891. He wrote the original basketball rule book and founded the University of Kansas basketball program.[2] Naismith lived to see basketball adopted as an Olympic demonstration sport in 1904 and as an official event at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, as well as the birth of the National Invitation Tournament (1938) and the NCAA Tournament (1939).
…
Naismith was a Presbyterian minister, and was also remembered as a Freemason.[36]
Take this info for what you will, but remember this, unintentional or intentional, knowledgeable of one’s doing or not having a clue, all things will line up with all things; from the subatomic to the galactic, and even from the sporting events to the conspiratorial secret societies and their passed down traditions of old.
MES Duality is a fact of life.
Highlights from Ken Wheeler’s Magnetism
Some further very interesting highlights from Ken’s view on the true nature of everything that makes up the visible universe, magnetism, is presented in this section.
Water Drop Analogy of “Wave-Particle Duality” of Light
From page 212 he illustrates how the “wave-particle duality” of light is akin to a ripple in water that shoots out a water droplet outwards.
Interestingly, from page 214, Ken elaborates further on David LaPoint’s primer fields! Note that Ken refers to the electric plasma ball as the “dielectric pulse” and the ejecting lines as the “dielectric radial”, again since these can be viewed as “counterspatial” or compressing inwards to itself either as a ball or a thin jet stream in compression.
All Magnets Line Up with a “Gyromagnetic Precession” Angle of 21.246 Degrees?!
Ken claims that all magnets line up on the poles of essentially any magnet at an angle of 21.246 degrees.
From page 43, I believe 21.246 angle is from half the “42.5 degree precession” number.
Galactic bodies exhibit this angle too?
From page 139:
Note the circle that can be traced as the balls roll around that gyromagnetic precession angle.
Retrieved: 3 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/95DCC
Even a ring magnet balancing in the air on a stick exhibits this angled behavior.
Retrieved: 3 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/eewci
Black Holes are Giant Magnetic Poles
Over a year ago, Ken Wheeler had stated that if an image of a black hole would ever be taken it would exactly like a magnet under a ferrocell. And he was spot on! CERN could’ve saved a few billions of dollars (per year) of taxpayer dollars if they had just purchased a ferrocell! Ken states that a black hole is essentially a super large mass that once it obtains coherency the dielectric inwards acceleration towards the black hole “sink” is so great that divergent magnetism is canceled out thus no volume or magnitude (magn-etism = magn-itude) is able to form.
Retrieved: 24 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/EuL3w
A great channel, Fractal Woman, illustrates this further by showing a continuous light source, as opposed to the individual LEDs (light emitting diodes) that come with a typical ferrocell, shows a better resemblance to the black hole.
Retrieved: 16 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/LtGpz
Here is the light source she uses.
Charles Steinmetz Century Old Model of Electricity as Made Up of Magnetism and Dielectricity
Ken also references the late Charles Proteus Steinmetz model from a century ago that considered electricity flowing through conductors, or materials that allow for the flow of electric charge or current, to be instead made up of the conjugate components of magnetism and dielectricity; as opposed to the mainstream view of electricity being a distinct field.
Retrieved: 2 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/YLIvf
The link to the book that Ken references is linked below. The electric field diagram is shown on page 11 of the book (or page 27 of the PDF). Note that the dielectric lines are dotted while the circular magnetic lines are not.
http://www.tfcbooks.com/e-books/elementary_lectures.pdf
Retrieved: 18 May 2019
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190519043410/http://www.tfcbooks.com/e-books/elementary_lectures.pdf
Local MES Download Link: https://1drv.ms/b/s!As32ynv0LoaIh8A3R8SDyLiiVfVbxA
Fractal Woman elaborates on this concept further.
Retrieved: 18 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/zdYmZ
Iron Filings Field Geometry Line Up with Steinmetz Dielectric Conjugate of Electricity
Theory and terminology aside, Steinmetz century old conjugate theory of electricity just so happens to match up eerily similar to the juxtaposed image of the ferrocell and iron filings field geometry.
http://www.ferrocell.us/intro.html
Now this is a game-changing head scratcher!
Wood Patterns Appear to Also Show Magneto Dielectric Field Lines?!
Notice how the longitudinal and radial cracks line up with dielectric lines and the circular shapes with the magnetic field lines.
Notice also how the lines appear to flow like water around a barrier…
Are you seeing what I am seeing here?!
Large Magnet Can Attract “Like Pole” of Smaller Magnet at Centripetal Magnetic Vortex
Ken has a great experiment demonstrating that the conventional notion of “like poles repel like poles” and “unlike poles attract unlike poles” doesn’t always hold up. Ken shows that placing a small sphere magnet at the center of a large cylinder magnet will undergo attraction even when the same poles are placed next to each other.
Retrieved: 19 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/pzzEh
When held further away the small magnet flips quickly so that the red side is attracting the top of the cylinder magnet.
Assuming Ken’s magnetic model and placing like “poles” or better yet like magnetic “spins” it appears the centripetal magnetic vortex of the large magnet overcomes the overall strength of the weaker smaller magnet.
“Like Poles” Can Attract If One Steel Barrier is Placed Between but Not Two
As similar demonstration to the one above is shown in a great video on magnetism by the late great Eric Laithwaite in which magnets in repulsion can still attract each other if there is a non-magnetized steel plate between them.
Retrieved: 31 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/p1JJX
Interestingly they repel when two plates are placed between.
Furthermore, adding an unmagnetized steel ball can be pulled away from a magnet by an unmagnetized steel piece?!
The magic of magnets knows no bounds!
Note that Eric Laithwaite preferred to use the concept of “reluctance” instead of the conventional “poles” concept.
Golden Ratio Field Pressure Mediation, Magnetic Polarity Phase Shift, and Magnetic Exposure Seed Growth
In some of Ken’s videos he states that a magnet has a “phase shift” such that the north pole is in “rarefaction” or is less dense in its magnetic field while the south pole is in compression. He claims this is such that the ratio of 1/Ф to Ф (phi) (or 1 to Ф) where Ф is the golden ratio and is 1.618...
Recall that I had covered the golden ratio in my nearly 4 hour video on infinite sequences (
).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
Retrieved: 17 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/2XTT8
On page 49, Ken describes magnetism and all fields to spiral in this ratio.
Note that the golden ratio is interconnected with the famous “Fibonacci Sequence” (with each term being a sum of the previous two) in that the ratio of the consecutive terms approach Ф.
Fibonacci Sequence: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, ...
Ratio of Consecutive Terms:
- 1/1 = 1
- 2/1 = 2
- 3/2 = 1.5
- 5/3 = 1.6666666…
- 8/5 = 1.6
- 13/8 = 1.625
- 21/13 = 1.61538462
- 34/21 = 1.61904762
- 55/34 = 1.61764706
- 89/55 = 1.61818182
- …
- 987/610 = 1.61803279 ≈ φ
A “golden spiral” is a “logarithmic spiral” with a “growth factor” of Ф and can be approximated by the Fibonacci spiral in which the spiral flows around areas of increasing size as per the Fibonacci sequence. On page 156 and 157 Ken has a compilation of the golden spiral and Fibonacci spiral patterns arising in all of nature which suggests a fundamental similarity in the field pressure mediation.
I assume the “phase shift” Ken is referring to is the ratio of the centrifugal magnetic area, volume, and/or charge? As usual Ken doesn’t explain well, and this topic is not in his 3rd edition of his book which I have been referencing. Apparently, he has the 4th edition in the works since at least 2015 and has posted about it last year that it is still in the works. If it is out already, please let me know.
Retrieved: 17
Archive: http://archive.fo/aqMfI
On page 234, Ken alludes to this phase shift by his experiments of placing a magnet in water and then freezing it.
Ken doesn’t explain the egg shape in his book, but he has several videos discussing it. I will be exploring this in more coherent detail in later videos, but this is worth referencing here. Note that in the above image, the top part is the “north pole”, and has a smaller spatial egg volume but interesting rock hard frozen thick ice wall above it. And the “south pole” has a larger spatial volume but transparent surroundings below it, besides the supposed centripetal thick vortex? Also note the dielectric plane zigzag center. Other important notes include the water in the perfect egg shape may not actually be frozen and throwing hot water on the ice block will show the dielectric plane melt very quickly relative to the rest of the ice block.
https://www.youtube.com/user/kathodosdotcom/search?query=egg
Retrieved: 20 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/WhcwY
This video shows the low melting temperature at the dielectric plane.
Retrieved: 20 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/KBUFw
Fascinating stuff!
Ken also has experiments regarding seed and plant exposure in which they grow differently depending on which pole they are exposed to; with exposure to the south pole showing best results, presumably from larger centrifugal magnetism hence larger spatial growth(?).
https://www.youtube.com/user/kathodosdotcom/search?query=seed
Retrieved: 22 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/MdB3M
Interestingly, I took a picture of an onion cut in half and it appears to exhibit similar “phase shift” as well as interesting ring like geometry. During formation, would the ring lines be considered the “dielectric” which “discharges” into space, hence the white onion part; thus, after growth the ring lines appears as empty voids?
Furthermore, an avocado as well as the area an animal tied to a circular silo can travel demonstrates this intriguing phase shift.
@mes/video-notes-polar-coordinates-area-example-3-cow-grazing-area-method-2
Retrieved: 4 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/IQamK
Magnet Covered with Ferrofluid Glides on Glass Frictionlessly: Is Friction Magnetic?
Although the following video is not from Ken, nonetheless I’ve included it for reference and future research. Covering a magnet with ferrofluid can glide with extremely low friction on a glass surface!
Is friction (as with all things) a magnetic phenomenon?
Retrieved: 22 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/Lclev
Adding just one drop of the ferrofluid shows the amazing magnetic “branching” out effect!
Adding more ferrofluid to a relatively wide magnet shows the donut shape, albeit without the spirals as in the ferrocell. Notice the separation from the presumably centrifugal and centripetal magnetic zones.
Note also the ferrofluid gathers at the “poles” while the dielectric plane shows little magnetic attraction, as both Ken Wheeler and David LaPoint’s models describe. Interestingly, with smaller and presumably stronger magnets, the ferrofluid gathers more uniformly at the “poles” as opposed to the above donut shape for the wider magnet.
Fascinating stuff!
Simple Moiré Patterns Demonstrate Amazing Magnetic Field Interference Patterns
“Moiré” patterns, likely originating from the term used for the method of “watered textiles” formed by pressing two layers of woven fabric when wet (as per Wikipedia), demonstrate very clearly the effect of creating complex geometry from interference of simple shapes. And images of two identical spirals can show amazing magnetic field geometry just by placing them on top of each other. This is so simple (or “simplex” as Ken would call it) yet so amazing at the very same time!
Retrieved: 1 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/p0rQN
Amazing magnetic field geometry from two simple moiré images of identical spiral formation!
Flipping one of the moiré images so that the spins are counter to each other demonstrates similar apparent intersecting spiral field geometry as shown in the ferrocell, and even in a pinecone. Note that Ken states this interference pattern is between the centrifugal and centripetal magnetic vortices.
Essentially all-natural phenomenon can be viewed as interference and coherency of similar field interactions.
Conservation of the Ether (or Aether) to Replace “Conservation of Energy”
Although, I would prefer if Ken Wheeler would tone down his rants, he does occasionally have some pretty epic and insight rants. And none more so than on page 33 which he states that the assumption of “conservation of energy” should be replaced with the fact of “Conservation of Ether” (which I refer to as Aether for the previously stated wordplay). Also, of note is the notion as to why electrical or inertial energy can vanish without reaction; i.e. properties of gyroscopes and hence all mass.
Instead of ‘conservation of energy’, it should be called the ‘conservation of the Ether’. However all fields are induced or transferred thru to another by the Ether alone, this means that induction cannot occur where the Ether is not, and likewise it means that (Tesla’s discovery) inertia and momentum can be discharged by equilibrium with the Ether by a special means of grounding. Meaning a terawatt of power can vanish with no resultant effect, or that you could create a system where a body could decelerate from 1000 MPH to 0 with no resultant forwards momentum, friction, or inertia. Contrary to popular belief that “energy cannot be destroyed, only transferred” is a myth. This only holds true if induction is possible and natural, energy can indeed be ‘lost’ completely, as was first discovered in AC generation stations where, before the generators got up to working inertias, enormous power is lost for a short time with no resultant dissipation into our world. Ether is the "ultimate" medium (Tesla often interchanged the term "medium" with "Ether") - being a perfect ‘fluid’ and transporting independent carriers. Tesla said that electromagnetic radiation was propagated, like sound waves in the Ether. GR and QM, the cult of quantum, has merely displaced the Ether as “dark matter” which according to their (likely incorrect) calculations, comprises almost all the universe. Which means in fact, in their myopic [short-sighted] misunderstanding, that the remaining few percent of the Universe are merely bundled Ether fields in stable forms (for a while) as plasma, elements, magnetism, gravity, and likewise. Therefore ultimately, of course, all is the Ether.
Mini Gyroscopes Analogy of Magnetism and “Field Incommensurability”
On page 60 of his book, Ken makes an analogy of a how a pre and post-electrification in the making of a “magnet” akin to many incoherent atomic magneto-dielectric mini gyroscopes that become orientated in the same direction, thus forming a large coherent magneto-dielectric electric dynamo.
Ken refers to this concept as “Field Incommensurability” in which atomic magneto-dielectric binary conjugates (i.e. collections of atoms, electrons, protons, etc.) demonstrate self-similarity and always parallel to the dielectric inertial plane. This idea is shown on page 88.
Gyroscopic Coherency and Applied Counter Spin Causes “Force Cancellation”?
I got the idea behind viewing gyroscopes as having to do with some kind of “field coherency” effect from Ken Wheeler, and in particular his video on applying a counter precession spin to a gyroscope hung by a string causes it to rise upwards. This upwards raising of the center of mass, which as explained earlier, generates measurable weight change (during rising) and without reaction; hence “inertial lift”. Ken describes this effect as due to “force cancellation” from the applied counter spin force to the coherent spinning motion of the gyroscope. Note that Ken mistakes the sensation of mass-lessness with weight loss since a gyroscope can behave massless in precession but without any measurable weight changes assuming the center of mass is not increasing or decreasing.
Retrieved: 2 May 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/xhvDj
First off, unfortunately as usual, Ken doesn’t elaborate or define exactly what he is referring to.
What does “force cancellation” mean?! Force cancellation of what?!
Recall that in my gyro experiments that the spin speed does not lower during natural or applied forced precession; thus, what exactly is being cancelled?!
Second of all, Ken’s experiment is similar to my earlier demonstrations in which I showed that applied forced precession generates magical over-unity torque and inertial lift such that the gyro moves to want to align spin and precession directions. This is illustrated in Eric Laithwaite’s gyro experiment below which interestingly Ken references in his video.
Francis McCabe demonstrates measured torque over-unity in that very little forced precession torque or electric battery input is required to generated precession and lift of the gyro.
I had performed similar experiments to Ken’s in my earlier gyro on a string demonstration. Forcing the precession generates lift such that, as always, the gyro wants to align spin and precession or applied force directions.
Applying rotation in the direction of the gyro spin makes it more rigid in its current state; as Ken stated.
Interestingly, even just the very unwinding of the string can generate a slight tilt, again indicating the torque over-unity nature of gyroscopes.
Unwinding in the direction of the gyro spin displays the best example of increasing rigidity in the current gyro orientation.
Note that Ken considers his “force cancellation” explanation as the mechanism underlying the conventional mathematical formulations for gyroscopic precession and “angular momentum”, but which I have throughout my video shown that the mainstream equations themselves are highly incomplete as they don’t account for gyros magically rising or dropping, torque over-unity inertial propulsion and lift, and all while behaving massless without centrifugal or centripetal force, spin or precessional angular momentum, and with zero loss in additional spin speed.
Furthermore, Ken’s explanation regarding force cancellation is also leaving out the property of gyroscopes to precess faster in a spiral opposite to vertically applied weight or torque. Adding downwards weight to a precessing gyro increases precession and rising rate.
Adding a counterweight such that the gyro should rise, instead makes it reverse its precession and the gyro drops; while again wanting to align spin and precession directions.
Another factor Ken hasn’t account for is that applying a counter-gyro-spin-direction force doesn’t necessarily cause the gyro to change orientation, so long as it is in near perfect orientation opposite to the applied force; but nonetheless this is an unstable orientation since any deviation from its alignment will generate inertial torqued motion.
Even though Ken is not accounting for all of the gyroscope’s near universally unknown properties covered in this video, I believe Ken is on to something big here when he speaks of coherency and force cancellation; even though he doesn’t define or elaborate what he means by them. My earlier image of possible field interactions when a gyroscope rises magically on its own while exhibiting zero precessional centripetal, centrifugal, and angular momentum, thus behaving massless, seems eerily telling of the true nature of gyroscopes and reality itself.
This image may very well be the final puzzle to uncovering practical anti-gravity propulsion which has been suppressed for far too long.
THE KEY TO GYROSCOPIC MAGIC IS COUNTERSPACE!
Just as I started filming, I am across a short section from Ken’s book on magnetism on page 46 to 47 where he gives a very interesting counterspatial explanation regarding gyroscopic precession.
…
The feature of a spinning gyroscope is that it appears to defy gravity and precess, whereas a non-spinning gyroscope falls down. The cause of the precessional motion and the gyroscope’s stability toward falling is attributed to the external force of gravity, however this is incorrect, it is due to centrifugally spinning mass moving against a centripetal field locus created at the center of the flywheel from counter-natural movement, and this likewise is the counterspatial torque inherent to a physical gyroscope causing its precession, and exerts a torque "sideways" on the angular momentum vector. This torque produces the non-intuitive result of precession.
…
Note that even Ken Wheeler gives the bogus mainstream diagram of circular precession. Spinning tops and gyroscopes rise on their own in a spiral upwards motion! Please, I can’t take any more of this over-confident fake physics, even if it is coming from the great (and misunderstood) Ken Wheeler.
How can something so simple as spiral upwards precession of spinning tops and gyroscopes evade even those that spend their entire lives uncovering the secrets of supposedly more complex phenomena such as magnetism?
Ken also doesn’t illustrate directly how “centrifugally spinning mass moving against a centripetal field locus” during “counter-natural movement” generates an “inherent counterspatial torque sideways” on the “[spin] angular momentum vector” which (magically) generates precession.
What in the world does that mean?!
His book is 236 pages yet has just one paragraph on gyroscopic precession with no clear description or explanation or illustration of what in the world he is talking about! Which direction does the precession move? How does a gyroscope magically rise on its own? Why does it behave massless in precession? How does it auto-adjust with instantaneous reactionless motions? How does it rise faster when extra weight is added? How does it drop when counterweight should make it rise? And many more questions raised from my experiments.
MES UPDATE: Further in my filming, I came to the realization as to what Ken was referring to when he states “counterspatial torque” which I mentioned earlier in this video, but nonetheless the above critique of Ken’s lack of clarity is warranted; especially since it has taken too much of my time deciphering what he talking about. Recall from page 78 of his book that the dielectric plane of a magnet “torques” a non-magnetized steel disk by inducing magnetism or “dielectric coherency”, but a permanent magnet’s own coherent dielectric plane torques against the larger magnet. This “torquing” of the steel disk perpendicular to the dielectric plane and hence reaching lowest pressure or dielectric torque region is what Ken considers to be the same as “gyroscopic inertia”; but doesn’t illustrate how it applies to gyroscopes directly.
Now, to put this all together more generally that accounts for both gyroscopic “inertia” as well as the gyroscopic “lack of inertia” demonstrated in my experiments, Ken does raise some very intriguing questions regarding gyroscopes and their similarities to magnetism; with dielectric counterspace being the missing piece of the puzzle.
Spatial centrifugal rotational motion necessitates counterspatial centripetal counter-rotational motion even in gyroscopes?!
The following is an illustration of the possible counterspatial interactions that gyroscopes may be experiencing as they spiral magically upwards in massless reactionless motions.
This image may very well be the closest fundamental illustration of how and why gyroscopes behave the way they do. One thing I know for sure is I will be exploring these ideas much further in future experiments and videos, so stay tuned!
Magnetism and Similar Field Geometry Appearing in All of Nature
The true nature of reality is such that all facets of it demonstrate similar patterns and geometry because they ultimately are all from the same aether or source. From magnets, plants, galaxies, psychology, and even the simple motions of a pendulum, beautiful and eerily similar patterns form.
The simple swings of a sand pendulum can demonstrate spirals and even square-like patterns.
Retrieved: 26 April 2019
Archive: http://archive.fo/yprBB
A great compilation of natural field geometry with emphasis on the ferrocell is shown in the following website. I think this article is a great way to end this video, as well as inspire the direction of future videos and areas of scientific exploration.
https://magnetismtoroidaldynamics.com/
This video is but a start of an investigation into reality.
STAY TUNED FOR #ANTIGRAVITY PART 7
Hope you enjoyed this epic journey and hope to see you in the next one!
View the full #AntiGravity Video Series: @mes/series