Anti-Gravity Wheel

[onepower]

I like the proof in this video because 1) it's demonstrable as seen in the video and 2) it's so obvious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo
Vertitasium, Anti-Gravity Wheel?.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
AC

[lancaIV]

Under attention ,like in all its mechanical spectrum : arrows direction !
positive = ccw or negative = cw M ( omentum) = F(orce ,with arrow above or below )x L(ever)

[onepower]

Another diagram...

[onepower]

Jerry

All of this will be easy for you to understand if you check some search results for gyroscopic precession.  Gravity is acting on the spinning mass, it's not acting on itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
AC

[sm0ky2]

Precession is only half of the picture. (R.I.P. Eric Laithewaite)
This alone does not account for the offset of the gravitational force.


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


We see that Energy approaches c^2


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


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