• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Expat Interview

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

marduk said:
unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!

(Exclamation marks his!)

Easily refuted... try his experiment for yourself.
Click to expand...
This is Bruce DePalma's spinning ball experiment -- a person with some training in aerodynamics (unlike, say, Richard Hoagland) would call this a nice example of the Magnus Effect.

Not so easily refuted, I suspect. The true test would be to repeat the experiment in a vacuum chamber.

By the way, somebody suggested exactly that in an Amazon reader's review of Mike Bara's book The Choice. Bara commented "That's plain dumb" but he didn't say why he thought it was "dumb" to eliminate an obvious possible explanation for the phenom.
 
Expat said:
This is Bruce DePalma's spinning ball experiment -- a person with some training in aerodynamics (unlike, say, Richard Hoagland) would call this a nice example of the Magnus Effect.

Not so easily refuted, I suspect. The true test would be to repeat the experiment in a vacuum chamber.

By the way, somebody suggested exactly that in an Amazon reader's review of Mike Bara's book The Choice. Bara commented "That's plain dumb" but he didn't say why he thought it was "dumb" to eliminate an obvious possible explanation for the phenom.
Click to expand...

Never thought of the spin effect on aerodynamics, nice catch. Sounds like it should be on mythbusters, they got access to a nasa vac chamber to refute some moon hoaxes. I'll stop thinking about how I can repeat their experiment at home and document it.
 
Here's something I found that is connected with Mystery-Student's post:
Let's also try to focus on the actual issue, which isn't Hoagland bashing or other unconstructive activities or concepts. We're trying to find some confirmation about a specific observation from a repeatable experiment first done by DePalma. It has to do with some mystery force ( Frame Dragging ... Inertial Field ... Torsion Field ... call it whatever ) that affects mass near to it in a way that could give rise to the observations made.
  • Can something about a heavy rotating mass affect the tiny mass of the tuning forks inside of an Accutron watch in a way that is analagous to DePalma's pendulum experiments?
  • Is the mass of the heavy steel flywheel sufficient to affect the miniature tuning fork whether it is spinning or not?
 
marduk said:
For me, Hoagland's right up there with the dude with the hair on Ancient Aliens.
Click to expand...

Almost completely off topic ( ironically considering my last post ) but that's funny ... "the dude with the hair" ... Isn't it amazing how we are perceived by the way our hair looks?

einstein.jpg
 
Expat said:
I'd love to see it on mythbusters....
Click to expand...

Absolutely!
mike said:
Perhaps you two could sort this out Via PM, Or start a new topic. This one is about the Expat interview after all.
Click to expand...

Hey wait a minute ... the issue of personal attacks was started because of the poor treatment Expat reported he received, so this issue is about something significant that was raised during the show, and my comment that it goes both ways was perfectly fair. In fact it's typically the skeptics who are prone to dishing out the ridicule. So do we really need to sweep the issue aside when it was a definite factor in Expat's presentation? I don't think so. Recently there's been a tragic news story about a girl who was a victim of bullying ( including cyberbullying ) who ended up killing herself. Expat and I are both adults and both of us have some firsthand experience as victims of character attacks. That's why I thought it was important to bring it up and take a stand against that kind of behavior. It's absolutely deplorable that he was attacked the way he was. I also believe that the way he and I have been exploring the issue of Inertial Field Theory is a good example of how two reasonable people can explore a contentious issue. Expat has a background in science journalism and I'm an amateur ufologist. Some would suggest that we come from two entirely separate schools of thought, yet here we are communicating just fine and with mutual respect. In my view this is some of the most valuable of experience we can have regardless of the topic, Expat and the Paracast and it's members all deserve praise for facilitating and participating in such a positive way.
 
Gene and Chris thanks for the great guess! I did enjoy the show, although I have doubts given how much details of this career was revealed it's possible to keep his anonymity.-;)

One comment about the US space program. No doubt a man space flight is not the prime target at the moment but I do agree with the Obama'a commission plan to shift the gears towards other projects given the current state of the economy. Now as one man on e said "rumors about my death are extremely exaggerated"
Apart from SpaceX project, that is full swing at the moment as the second ship was launched successfully and delivered its payload there are two manor developments I would like to point out

1. CST-100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Orion (spacecraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both programs are very tangible and not matter of a distant future. Yes it would be awesome to hear another version of JFK speech, which btw was recently aired on its 50th anniversary. But in my view the reality check tells me - it must have been Chinese going to Moon / Mars first to make it happen and again it will be reactive and not backed up by well thought out program written in advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk in a bus.
 
Frame Dragging has now been confirmed so we are one step closer in our examination of the observations of DePalma & Hoagland.

"An international team of NASA and university researchers has found the first direct evidence the Earth is dragging space and time around itself as it rotates. The researchers believe they have measured the effect, first predicted in 1918 by using Einstein’s theory of general relativity, by precisely observing shifts in the orbits of two Earth-orbiting laser-ranging satellites. The researchers observed the orbits of the Laser Geodynamics Satellite I (LAGEOS I), a NASA spacecraft, and LAGEOS II, a joint NASA/Italian Space Agency (ASI) spacecraft." More Here​

This information was dug up by dlorde over on the JREF and first mentioned here by Mystery-Student.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Regardless of what people think about possible mysteries on the Moon and Mars, Bara's insulting attitude continues to rip his case apart.
Click to expand...

Agreed. When people start to get all insulting and using epithets, sarcasm and ridicule to emphasize their position rather than remaining objective, civil and rational, their credibility drops like a stone ... ( proportionally to the square of their rudeness per instance ) ... so the more they curse and insult the faster they fall until people no longer even care if what they are saying is true, they just want them to go away.
 
Thank you for having a skeptic on the show, very refreshing to hear a level headed guest. The whole Eygptian conspiracy had me laughing. Great show guys.
 
Mystery-Student said:
-in response to UFOLOGY at the top of the page- I can't remember the scientists inolved but I thought the torsion field was shown to be extremely plausible. I'll look for the information but the experiment went like this: two scientists created a test by using multiple gyroscopes inside a satellite. they were set up in two different directional spins. the satellite was sent up into orbit so two gyroscopes were spinning parallel to the earths spin and two were spinning perpendicular to the earths spin. they used a laser from earth to the satellite or from the satllite to the sun(I don't remember) and in the beginning the laser had a base line of being perfectly reflecting back at a certain spot but if the torsion field was present it would cause the gyroscopes to alter there paths due to the twisting of space. after a while the reflecting laser was shown to move slightly which was attached somehow to the gysoscopes so if they altered their path, the direction that the laser was reflected would also move accordingly. They had calculated that the torion field would cause the laser to move at about the diameter of a penny at that set location. After the test, the results came back exactly a penny's diameter change(I don't recall the actual distance but it was roughly the same as the diameter of a penny) . It was written up and I read it in some of Brian Greene's writings.
Click to expand...


I believe you are refering to the Lense–Thirring effect.

Lense–Thirring precession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AKA Frame dragging

Frame-dragging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This was tested by LAGEOS 1, launched 4 May 1976
And again by LAGEOS 2, deployed 23 October 1992

LAGEOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And was recently confirmed by the gravity probe B experiment

Gravity Probe B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Final results here

Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe

Imo one of the most significant experiments in human scientific history thus far.
 
mike, you're right. I was thinking of the Lense-Thirring preocession and frame dragging, I looked quickly and found Gravity Probe B showing some similar data in general so I just mentioned that one. But its pretty interesting to think about and imagine how it works and the effects that occur
 
Mystery-Student said:
mike, you're right. I was thinking of the Lense-Thirring preocession and frame dragging, I looked quickly and found Gravity Probe B showing some similar data in general so I just mentioned that one. But its pretty interesting to think about and imagine how it works and the effects that occur
Click to expand...

Yup ... I think you'll find that I mentioned that here and give you credit for being the first one to mention it. We now know that the effect exists, but what we don't know is if it's related to the observations made by DePalma and Hoagland. I've had some pretty interesting feedback over on the JREF from a watchmaker who actually worked on Accutrons. He's made some good points, but not enough to completely rule out the observations.
 
ufology said:
Yup ... I think you'll find that I mentioned that here and give you credit for being the first one to mention it. We now know that the effect exists, but what we don't know is if it's related to the observations made by DePalma and Hoagland. I've had some pretty interesting feedback over on the JREF from a watchmaker who actually worked on Accutrons. He's made some good points, but not enough to completely rule out the observations.
Click to expand...

sorry I didnt see that. I'm going to go read up on an accutron because before this thread I had never heard of it. so i'll see what i can gleen from it and if i can add anything to help the topic. What is JREF? I'd like to read some of the postings there too to see what you and others have already remarked on. Sorry i'm new to all this and this is the first forum i've read or participated in ever
 
The Torsion Field in the Lorentz-invariant Theory of Gravitation:

"The gravitational torsion field is the force field acting on the masses and bodies in translational or rotational motion, which is the second component of the gravitational field in the Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation and in the covariant theory of gravitation. By its action the torsion field is similar to the magnetic field in electromagnetism (see Maxwell-like gravitational equations). The term torsion field in this meaning was introduced by Sergey Fedosin in 1999. The torsion field dimension in the system of physical units SI is the same as for the angular velocity, that is radians per second."​
​
SOURCE HERE

It's looking more and more like Frame Dragging, Torsion Fields and Inertial Fields are all some incarnation of the same idea:
  • 1896: Benedict and Immanuel FRIEDLANDER ( torsion balance near a heavy flying-wheel )
  • 1904: August FOPPL ( Earth-rotation effect on a gyroscope )
  • 1916: DE SITTER ( shift of perihelion of Mercury due to Sun rotation )
  • 1918: LENSE AND THIRRING ( perturbations of the Moons of solar system planets by the planet angular momentum )
  • 1959: Yilmaz ( satellites in polar orbit )
  • 1976: Graziani-Breakwell-VanPatten-Everitt ( two non-passive counter-rotating satellites in polar orbit: a very expensive experiment
  • 1960: Schiff-Fairbank-Everitt ( Earth orbiting gyroscopes )
  • 1977-78: Cugusiand Proverbio, on LAGEOS only ( however, wrong rate for frame-dragging )
  • 1984-1996: I.C.: USE THE NODES OF TWO LAGEOS SATELLITES ( two supplementary inclination, passive, laser ranged satellites )
  • 1988: Nordtvedt ( Astrophysical evidence from periastron rate of binary pulsar )
  • 1995-2007: I.C. etal. ( obs. & measurements-2004-using LAGEOS and LAGEOS-II )
  • 1998: Some astrophysical evidence from accretion disks of black holes and neutron stars
  • 1998: Evidence of translational Gravitomagnetism from Lunar Laser Ranging
  • 2004: launch of Gravity Probe B
  • 2011: LARES
SOURCE HERE

Also I ran across an experiment that some people finally did that I had suggested back in the 1990s while chatting on a university BBS. Unfortunately I don't have any records of those conversations. I remember they scoffed at my suggestion that they put a superconducting levitating disk on a scale to see if there was any change in weight. Here's a link to the experiment they eventually did:

Measurement of Gravitomagnetic and Acceleration Fields Around Rotating Superconductors
 
yeah i agree with where you are going. all the names given by different people seem to be referring to or have its main forces related to one theory. I haven't done enough reading to see what it was named first. though there may be certain aspects or implications that researchers are trying to look into but i think its all related back to one name.
-before, ufology asked, "would a heavy steel flywheel be sufficent enough to effect a tiny tuning fork whether it is spinning or not?"
well depending on how massive that flywheel is(i'm just thinking in general terms, not a specific value) it would have to be enormous to have enough mass to affect a small tuning fork, much in the same way it would have to be massive to have any noticeable gravitational effects on the tuning fork. but the fact that it is not spinning, except for being on the earth as it spins, would probably be insufficent to notice any effects.
Now in regards to a spinning heavy steel flywheel. whatever the mass is originally, if you could generate enough energy to make the flywheel spin increasingly faster, its inertia and mass would increase as well due to it having more energy. now depending on how fast would be needed, the effect of frame dragging should be noticeable 1) because it is spinning +2) because it would have enough mass to distort space around it just as the earth does.
Whether or not a tuning fork is sufficent enough a means to test or measure the distortion i do not know. the rate at which frame dragging effects decrease as distance is increased from the spinning object is unknown to me. it may have to be extremely close but i cannot really say in that regards.
 
Back
Top