illuusio

I think that there was a little yips on orientation of driller and that caused test object's movement away from driller. With attached driller you get very nice phenomenon without any unwanted movements. But as you can see, I managed to balance that harmonic motion at last. Covering rotating part with something smoother, like duct tape, will improve phenomenon. If you want even better result you can attach small metal ball into driller. And ofcourse, best result is achieved in vacuum.

mmm... drillier's part was the rotating object. That plastic stick was the test object.

Ok, here is my video -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C9H10YAm0w Obviously pulling force overpowers air flow resistance. Smoother driller's rotating part would decrease air flow resistance. In vacuum, effect is great. That previously linked video is really indeed a crap, sry about that one!

Busy day today, but quick visit now. I'll do a video where this pulling effect can be seen. Bike wheel obviously was too rough surfaced and it generated a lot of force towards the test object.

Ok, here is one -> http://www.sea3000.n...81009181348.php I have done also my own experiments with high rotation frequency objects. After that I realized that rotation is very much involved. You like very mich picturing things. Picture this, you have two balls of lead (radius 0.1 m, 47.54 kg) hanging side by side, say 1 mm apart. How much force there should be by Newton. Mmm... by Newton there will be roughly force of 3.7e-6N and because of two object total pulling force is 7.4e-6N. Shouldn't you find that those two balls get contact with that force? You can image densier objects than lead if you will. And for curiosity, increase the gap between balls, but give like 1/s rotation frequence for both of them

Wait a couple of days, I do my own video. I use lighter, smooth surfaced objects but high rotation frequency (~50 rps). It will demonstrate nicely pulling force. I have done it already few times. I have some spare time during weekend to do the video. aa.. in that last video you certainly did neutralised air flow, but at the same time you did neutralised magnus effect in force transfer ether too.

Ok, here is bigger setup, idea is the same, creating pulling force with rotation.

Sure 15 N is enough, problem is in created force by moving air. I'll do my own demonstration video in few days. I use drilling machine but smaller test object to prevent air flow problems. Mean time you guys can read this document -> http://www.sea3000.n...81009181348.php Anyway, I preciate your effort imatfaal !

Slicks would be better... or vacuum. Maybe differently shaped test object? ball type? bigger nail is good (I used bigger nail).

mmm... nice set up! This is easy one, I'm right. Actually there is few odd phenomenon which can state that Newton was wrong. Like some binary stars and galaxy's odd spiral movements.

Hi Mellinia! Pebbles don't come near the wheel from great distances, they are very light same as wheel is light (compared to Earth) . But stuff that gets attached (for any reason) will be flown away quickly because of the kinetic energy. My equations come across from observations, experiments and from need to explain anomalous phenomenon with simpler explanations. Newton's laws are absolutely valid, only problem is gravitation constant. It is not a constant nor universal.

You mean riding your bike as your experiment? In that case wheels are rotating but when stuff is attached to the wheel it gets so much kinetic energy that it flies away.

Here is a picture of bike wheel experiment. And to ACG52, I don't think that 15 N will make any difference to the bike on the floor.

I certainly can! I'll do it tomorrow, now it's time to go to sleep (I live in Finland and it's night already).

I certainly can! I'll do it tomorrow, now it's time to go to sleep (I live in Finland and it's night already).

Ok, good example. 1. G = 0.5 * 5^2 = 12.5 2. F_{"gravitation"} = 12.5 * 1.595 * weight of test object, lets say 0.1 kg / (0.35 + 0.002 + test object's radius, let's say 0.005)^2) = 15.6435 N Was this any helpful?

Hi, I made my own tests with rotating (smooth surfaced) objects. Pulling force was very visible. I don't have Cavendish experiment caliber equipment to measure exact force but I was impressed anyhow! Math is inside the pdf to look for. If you can't download it I can copy paste them here later.

First of all, thank you for a new chance! I have used my time wisely with theory and here is the latest version. I hope we can get further this time.

I don't want to hijack this thread so I make it short. I have experimental evidence and an application (related to aviation) for my theory. It would be nice to unlock my previous thread or allow me to start a new one, thanks advance!

Ok, I give a hand here Rotation frequence is essential to "gravitation" Enjoy!

It depends, but it depends also on masses and distance. Without motion there is no gravitation illusion no matter how large masses are or distance is.

Your equations are not plausible because of the failure of the units to tally up. Your assertions about gravity are false because they don't agree with observation. How wrong are you prepared to be? Units can be fixed just like with G constant at present. G is velocity-dependent but pure G does nothing by itself, it's just scaling things, mass and distance create the effect (through GEPs).

My theory can be verified easily and measurement can be calculated before. I'm refering modified Cavendish experiment. That I call science.

Well if you have those Cavendishs balls side by side say 1 cm distance. What happens? nothing. In Cavendish experiment larger ball is coming towards smaller ball and then smaller ball is "pulled" towards larger ball. Ok, there is motion involved. One variation of Cavendish experiment is put those balls at first side by side say 1 cm. Then by rotating larger (there must be axle attached between ball and motor) ball next to smaller ball there will be "pulling effect" again. Again motion is involved. I didn't understand that last part, give me an example. The first equation is The First law of ToEbi. Second equation, it can be ignored at the moment. Well, If we think about space traveling. Taking off from Earth and entering Moon. Scientists calculate (based on measured G) gravitation force on both ends and how much energy is needed in order to succeed. Calculated G is somewhat bigger than measured G, but we live in Universe (in our solar system) so measured G is perfectly ok to be used. Besides there is always left some margin in calculations related to energy consumption of space craft. Moon stays (not forever) with us because of pulling force (gravitation) and it's kinetic energy are more or less in balance. And don't be so hostile! Let's be civilized From plain wrong equation I can calculate strong interaction in simple case. And in future also electromagnetism can be derived based on The First law of ToEbi.

G is NOT universal. It's powerful when you can calculate strong interaction.