That is good for attitude control but that is about it. To create anti-gravity First you have to know what Gravity Is and what it is Not! Most scientist on earth do Not know shit about Exactly what gravity Is. How can you create an Anti-something unless you Know what that something Is ? Morons ha ha ha !! I KNOW Exactly what creates gravity is and the 4 Universal Factors that create it And I Know Exactly How to Build a Flying Saucer. I got that information straight from a Starship Captain !
I was wondering if it is possible to form a series of coils into a gyroscope that can be pushed and pulled by electomagnets mounted on opposite sides along the circumference to lift and move the device. My idea would be that the gyroscope and magnets are mounted on the same rig and that the magnets would be powerful enough to lift the entire rig.
Moron: these phenomena have been understood by physicists for some 200 years, and have nothing to do with antigravity.
Centrifugal force is not even a real force: it is a fictitious force which is introduced so that inertial Newtonian mechanics can be applied to a rotating system.
Gyroscopes do not move at right-angles to an applied force; they only appear to do so because of the damping of nutation by crudely built apparatus.
Hi Flowerbower, Are you so uncivilized that you have to be rude! To get you up to speed, the understanding of gyroscopes was FIRST analyzed by Foucault in 1851, which is 161 years ago, not 200, read a history and a math book, “why don’t ya”? Even so was the labeling of forces that classical physics was famous for the final word, and the final complete understanding! Hello anyone there, wake up!
@JOHNROMANIWASZKO You are the one insulting the memory of long-dead scientists who cannot defend themselves, so I shall be as rude as I like. BTW, why do reserve the right to censor comments, and then don't use it?
For a start, the object shown in your vid is not - in fact - a gyroscope: it is a spinning-top. The spinning-top has been an object of interest for thousands of years and its analysis dates back to Euler (Newton never really 'got to grips' with it). Secondly, Foucault did not ...
@flowerbower How do I insult the memory of long dead scientists, particularly if I have credited their works at the end of the videos? My reason of censorship is my own, what right do you have to question my motives. If you must know it’s to try and keep things clean, so I do not post language that is inappropriate or repetitive, all others are posted.
@flowerbower For your information a spinning top is not mounted in a gimbal, so you are in error, what I have presented is a gyroscope, and yes spinning tops date back thousands of years. The action of a top relies on the gyroscopic effect for its operation.
@flowerbower 1851 physics crudely described, labeled and tried to make mathematical sense of the world they barely understood at the time, was their understanding complete, and is our understanding complete? In your arrogance and hence stupidity you seem to think it is and that we seemingly haven’t evolved since 1851, read a modern physics book, “Why don’t ya”?
@JOHNROMANIWASZKO I doubt that you can understand the mathematical techniques which were used 200 years ago, so why do you think that you are so grand?
Forget all of your bluster, all that you are doing in your vid is repeating the same 'experiments' (actually only demonstrations) which were performed by Laithwaite and drawing the same nonsense conclusions.
There ARE subtleties of top behaviour which are supposedly new (e.g. Hannay angle), but which were in fact known to Aristotle.
@flowerbower By your statement, it seems that you cannot understand the mathematical techniques which were used 200 years ago. Yes I borrowed from Laithwaite, he is credited at the end of the vid, truly a brilliant engineer, and unlike you he actually achieved many things in his life! We all borrow from our preceding generations its called advancement otherwise we would still all be in the jungle.
@flowerbower As to your apparent summation of my conclusions are you really a physicist, if you know anything you would have realised that my version of some of his experiments are corrected within standard physics doctrine, so is scientifically correct, shows how little you know.
@flowerbower If you could read the English language you would have also noticed that when I use the word, “antigravity” it is in inverted comas, so do I need to explain what inverted comas are for, read an English literacy book, “Why don’t ya?
@JOHNROMANIWASZKO Yes, I noticed that but I thought that you were giving yourself an 'out' (on top of censorship) in case you were challenged by an expert. You have been, so use your out.
Yes, please do explain what an 'inverted coma' is. Is it the state of being permanently awake?
Here is an old English saying, "Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs".
@flowerbower Do you know what thought thought? Do you think that I care about being challenged by self professed experts such as yourself, LOL? “Oh the experts are coming I better say the right thing!” LOL. My only reason for using quotation marks are to indicate that the word “antigravity” is or is not being used in its current commonly accepted sense, as like yourself, many seem to have created their own definition in their own minds, yours the distillation of hundreds of years of theory, LOL!
@flowerbower Oh yes please do give me your definition of antigravity, and from where your information is sourced, since by your own statement “has nothing to do with antigravity” please describe to us what it is, and please use a modern day book of less than 5 years old in your reference if you have one.
As with the rest of your description of classical forces, outdated much like yourself.
@JOHNROMANIWASZKO The simplest definition in this context is any behaviour which does not obey Newton's Third Law (which is just a corollary of the conservation of energy). My 'information' is the distillation of hundreds of years of years of theory and experiment published by scientists whose brilliance you are incapable of even imagining. as a professional physicist, I don't rely on textbooks you moron.
You are the one making outrageous claims, where is your proof?
@flowerbower You claim your information is a distillation of hundreds of years of theory, what the! Are you claiming to have read hundreds of years of theory, in a mere lifetime? Yes I am incapable of imagining the brilliance of some of our forefathers of science, but your statement appears to put yourself in their league, oh WOW a professional physicist, you think yourself a god by your statement! How you gratify your own vanity. Your vanity is simply phenomenal.
@flowerbower There are two virtues in the world the true and the false, the false are based upon vanity, and the true are based on unselfishness.
What have you achieved other than your self professed egotistic vanity. Which makes me pity you; a nobel person would never put down the works of another simply to gratify their own vanity.
@flowerbower My impression of you, the nature of you and your life’s work main claim to fame is your persistent attacts on Searl, is this the greatest achievement of your life as a physicist? Is this all that you have achieved in your brilliant career as a Physicist or at least claim, as you offer no proof, how sad. Once again I pity you.
@flowerbower How deplorable it is that a man with some literary powers and claimed knowledge of physics should spend all their time attacking others. I really doubt you have any brilliance, a brilliant man would be engaged in their work, and would not waste time trolling on youtube!
@flowerbower Alternatively it is sad to see a self professed brilliant mind and a lifetime of studying physics end up a troll on youtube. Very sad. What are my “outrageous claims”, that you seek proof for!
Hi John, referring to the experiment with the counterbalanced gimble at approx 5:00 have you tried to replace the counter weight on the assembly with another gyroscope instead? then if you fixed both gyros so they were unable to pivot at the end of the rod and rotated the entire assembly with your hand would there be a lift force generated on the assembly equal to the rotational input force from your hand? or a downward force if you rotated the assembly the opposite direction?
Very interesting dr JohnROMANIWASZKO. perhaps, if gravity now can bend the electromagnetic field, then why can't the opposite do work? maby something has to be changed in maxwell equations? But its looks like this gyroscopic is an important component also.
I think ufo tech must have something to do with gyroscopic mechanism because most ufos we see in films are in disc shape and they seem to wabble a bit in the air when hovering, assuming that they do exist and the films are real.
what if u could manage to build gyroscope which has two rims (one within the other), what do u think would be the outcome when both spin in different directions
In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, anti-gravity is the idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to the lack of weight under gravity experienced in free fall or orbit, nor to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism or aerodynamic lift.
this video dosent make any good piont as you can see it spins but dosent even gravitate into the air it dosent come close to what real alien technology can do they violate all the laws of gravity and phisics and yet this video sticks to them and dose nothing new that can be real levitation
we humans talk and think to much to the point where things cant get done. bla bla bla, no wonder our ancestors used pictures rather than wrighting or video...
Thanks for your comment, Im happy to have impressed, these are my older experiments, I have many more experiments with gyroscopic levitation and other forms of levitation that I believe are far more impressive, that require editing, so will be posting as soon as I can.
Now construct 4 gyroscope and put it the corner base of the pyramid (N/S/E/W). The vortex of pyramid should vibrate at 3hz-8hz(Earth's resonance). The base of the pyramid should be concave or near pointed to allow free rotation of the whole body. see what will happen.
You may be onto something here, Tesla, through his experiments, discovered that the most efficient way to make his coils was to wind them in a conical shape, large at the bottom and small at the top where the most voltage is produced. This architecture allowed for the greatest number of turns to be placed within the shape of the magnetic field being created by the primary at the base of the coil, away from the high voltage.
The most efficient shape to produce a focused electric field in order to create an ionized beam that would be used as not just an antenna but as a conductor to the ionosphere, is a conical or pyramid shape. I believe that the size of the pyramid should be a harmonic of the Earths resonant frequency. I also believe that, we may want to keep the denominator of the golden ratio at the unreduced number 2 because the number 2 in that case stands for the octave (doubling).
now construct 4 gyroscope and connect that to 4 corner of pyramid facing N/S/E/W. the vortex of the pyramid should vibrate to 3hz-8hz(Earth's resonance), see what will happen. The base of the pyramid must be concave or near pointed to allow rotation of the whole body.
Let this be a record of invention, I will upload videos, in the near future, I have successfully created a Searl effect type generator that levitates over aluminium using a coil to spin the magnets which achieves a triple levitation effect, the eddy currents from the coil will repel away from the aluminium, the rotating magnets in the form of a Searl effect generator within also repel and the gyroscopic motion of the spin increase the effect as well as keeping it stable,
for my next trick I will use a Halbach magnet array spun over aluminum with an electrostatic field, that can be powered by the earth's field which will provide the relatively low direct current at high voltage, ideal for operating this device, in short a perpetually spinning levitating device, that is gyroscopically stable and will never stop levitating!
That is good for attitude control but that is about it. To create anti-gravity First you have to know what Gravity Is and what it is Not! Most scientist on earth do Not know shit about Exactly what gravity Is. How can you create an Anti-something unless you Know what that something Is ? Morons ha ha ha !! I KNOW Exactly what creates gravity is and the 4 Universal Factors that create it And I Know Exactly How to Build a Flying Saucer. I got that information straight from a Starship Captain !
nicktesla45 8 months ago
@nicktesla45 good for you , by the way , who asked you ?
william69952 7 months ago
I was wondering if it is possible to form a series of coils into a gyroscope that can be pushed and pulled by electomagnets mounted on opposite sides along the circumference to lift and move the device. My idea would be that the gyroscope and magnets are mounted on the same rig and that the magnets would be powerful enough to lift the entire rig.
xlr99 9 months ago
Interesting subject, seems to be a lot of hate here though
cobra60six 10 months ago
Moron: these phenomena have been understood by physicists for some 200 years, and have nothing to do with antigravity.
Centrifugal force is not even a real force: it is a fictitious force which is introduced so that inertial Newtonian mechanics can be applied to a rotating system.
Gyroscopes do not move at right-angles to an applied force; they only appear to do so because of the damping of nutation by crudely built apparatus.
Read a physics textbook, why don't ya?
flowerbower 10 months ago
Hi Flowerbower, Are you so uncivilized that you have to be rude! To get you up to speed, the understanding of gyroscopes was FIRST analyzed by Foucault in 1851, which is 161 years ago, not 200, read a history and a math book, “why don’t ya”? Even so was the labeling of forces that classical physics was famous for the final word, and the final complete understanding! Hello anyone there, wake up!
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@JOHNROMANIWASZKO You are the one insulting the memory of long-dead scientists who cannot defend themselves, so I shall be as rude as I like. BTW, why do reserve the right to censor comments, and then don't use it?
For a start, the object shown in your vid is not - in fact - a gyroscope: it is a spinning-top. The spinning-top has been an object of interest for thousands of years and its analysis dates back to Euler (Newton never really 'got to grips' with it). Secondly, Foucault did not ...
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower How do I insult the memory of long dead scientists, particularly if I have credited their works at the end of the videos? My reason of censorship is my own, what right do you have to question my motives. If you must know it’s to try and keep things clean, so I do not post language that is inappropriate or repetitive, all others are posted.
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@flowerbower For your information a spinning top is not mounted in a gimbal, so you are in error, what I have presented is a gyroscope, and yes spinning tops date back thousands of years. The action of a top relies on the gyroscopic effect for its operation.
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@flowerbower 1851 physics crudely described, labeled and tried to make mathematical sense of the world they barely understood at the time, was their understanding complete, and is our understanding complete? In your arrogance and hence stupidity you seem to think it is and that we seemingly haven’t evolved since 1851, read a modern physics book, “Why don’t ya”?
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@JOHNROMANIWASZKO I doubt that you can understand the mathematical techniques which were used 200 years ago, so why do you think that you are so grand?
Forget all of your bluster, all that you are doing in your vid is repeating the same 'experiments' (actually only demonstrations) which were performed by Laithwaite and drawing the same nonsense conclusions.
There ARE subtleties of top behaviour which are supposedly new (e.g. Hannay angle), but which were in fact known to Aristotle.
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower By your statement, it seems that you cannot understand the mathematical techniques which were used 200 years ago. Yes I borrowed from Laithwaite, he is credited at the end of the vid, truly a brilliant engineer, and unlike you he actually achieved many things in his life! We all borrow from our preceding generations its called advancement otherwise we would still all be in the jungle.
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago 4
@flowerbower As to your apparent summation of my conclusions are you really a physicist, if you know anything you would have realised that my version of some of his experiments are corrected within standard physics doctrine, so is scientifically correct, shows how little you know.
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@flowerbower If you could read the English language you would have also noticed that when I use the word, “antigravity” it is in inverted comas, so do I need to explain what inverted comas are for, read an English literacy book, “Why don’t ya?
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@JOHNROMANIWASZKO Yes, I noticed that but I thought that you were giving yourself an 'out' (on top of censorship) in case you were challenged by an expert. You have been, so use your out.
Yes, please do explain what an 'inverted coma' is. Is it the state of being permanently awake?
Here is an old English saying, "Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs".
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower Do you know what thought thought? Do you think that I care about being challenged by self professed experts such as yourself, LOL? “Oh the experts are coming I better say the right thing!” LOL. My only reason for using quotation marks are to indicate that the word “antigravity” is or is not being used in its current commonly accepted sense, as like yourself, many seem to have created their own definition in their own minds, yours the distillation of hundreds of years of theory, LOL!
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@flowerbower Oh yes please do give me your definition of antigravity, and from where your information is sourced, since by your own statement “has nothing to do with antigravity” please describe to us what it is, and please use a modern day book of less than 5 years old in your reference if you have one.
As with the rest of your description of classical forces, outdated much like yourself.
Cheers JRI
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@JOHNROMANIWASZKO The simplest definition in this context is any behaviour which does not obey Newton's Third Law (which is just a corollary of the conservation of energy). My 'information' is the distillation of hundreds of years of years of theory and experiment published by scientists whose brilliance you are incapable of even imagining. as a professional physicist, I don't rely on textbooks you moron.
You are the one making outrageous claims, where is your proof?
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower You claim your information is a distillation of hundreds of years of theory, what the! Are you claiming to have read hundreds of years of theory, in a mere lifetime? Yes I am incapable of imagining the brilliance of some of our forefathers of science, but your statement appears to put yourself in their league, oh WOW a professional physicist, you think yourself a god by your statement! How you gratify your own vanity. Your vanity is simply phenomenal.
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@flowerbower There are two virtues in the world the true and the false, the false are based upon vanity, and the true are based on unselfishness.
What have you achieved other than your self professed egotistic vanity. Which makes me pity you; a nobel person would never put down the works of another simply to gratify their own vanity.
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@flowerbower My impression of you, the nature of you and your life’s work main claim to fame is your persistent attacts on Searl, is this the greatest achievement of your life as a physicist? Is this all that you have achieved in your brilliant career as a Physicist or at least claim, as you offer no proof, how sad. Once again I pity you.
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@flowerbower How deplorable it is that a man with some literary powers and claimed knowledge of physics should spend all their time attacking others. I really doubt you have any brilliance, a brilliant man would be engaged in their work, and would not waste time trolling on youtube!
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago
@flowerbower Alternatively it is sad to see a self professed brilliant mind and a lifetime of studying physics end up a troll on youtube. Very sad. What are my “outrageous claims”, that you seek proof for!
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 10 months ago 3
Hi John, referring to the experiment with the counterbalanced gimble at approx 5:00 have you tried to replace the counter weight on the assembly with another gyroscope instead? then if you fixed both gyros so they were unable to pivot at the end of the rod and rotated the entire assembly with your hand would there be a lift force generated on the assembly equal to the rotational input force from your hand? or a downward force if you rotated the assembly the opposite direction?
doo0T 11 months ago
Very interesting dr JohnROMANIWASZKO. perhaps, if gravity now can bend the electromagnetic field, then why can't the opposite do work? maby something has to be changed in maxwell equations? But its looks like this gyroscopic is an important component also.
spand3244 1 year ago 6
I think ufo tech must have something to do with gyroscopic mechanism because most ufos we see in films are in disc shape and they seem to wabble a bit in the air when hovering, assuming that they do exist and the films are real.
nawkrm 1 year ago
Hi nawkrm,
Yes I totally agree, I also have seen video of supposed UFO’s behaving like those of my "Antigravity" method 1a, method 3b, and 9.
Thanks for your comment.
Cheers JRI
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 1 year ago
this is the best thing i've stumbled across in ages
Pendor42 1 year ago 7
what if u could manage to build gyroscope which has two rims (one within the other), what do u think would be the outcome when both spin in different directions
TheRealBKZ 1 year ago
In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, anti-gravity is the idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to the lack of weight under gravity experienced in free fall or orbit, nor to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism or aerodynamic lift.
marlonbtx 1 year ago
haha, try to watch this high, its awesome! i mean; what is he talking about, dont get shit!
Tytor 1 year ago
this video dosent make any good piont as you can see it spins but dosent even gravitate into the air it dosent come close to what real alien technology can do they violate all the laws of gravity and phisics and yet this video sticks to them and dose nothing new that can be real levitation
stevenchiverton 1 year ago
But still you have to "support the mass" ie no arm holding the gyro itself
GreenAce92 1 year ago
And if impeller blades were added at the rim of the spin-wheel ?
zxismael123 1 year ago
@zxismael123 Hi zxismael123,
Impeller blades would create lift, and the device would be classed as an aerodynamic device.
Thanks for your comment.
Cheers JRI
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 1 year ago
we humans talk and think to much to the point where things cant get done. bla bla bla, no wonder our ancestors used pictures rather than wrighting or video...
dish125db 1 year ago
Hi dish125db,
Can you please elaborate about what your comment is referring to, maybe it would help if you can send a picture. LOL
Cheers
John
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 1 year ago
@dish125db I agree. In one of my anthropology classes, our professor remarked about how ancient humans disliked using video cameras.
arnold02000 10 months ago
that's really impressive...
masteroffear95 2 years ago
Hi masteroffear95,
Thanks for your comment, Im happy to have impressed, these are my older experiments, I have many more experiments with gyroscopic levitation and other forms of levitation that I believe are far more impressive, that require editing, so will be posting as soon as I can.
Thanks for watching.
Cheers
JRI
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 2 years ago
Now construct 4 gyroscope and put it the corner base of the pyramid (N/S/E/W). The vortex of pyramid should vibrate at 3hz-8hz(Earth's resonance). The base of the pyramid should be concave or near pointed to allow free rotation of the whole body. see what will happen.
jexphe2k 2 years ago
Hi jexphe2k,
You may be onto something here, Tesla, through his experiments, discovered that the most efficient way to make his coils was to wind them in a conical shape, large at the bottom and small at the top where the most voltage is produced. This architecture allowed for the greatest number of turns to be placed within the shape of the magnetic field being created by the primary at the base of the coil, away from the high voltage.
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 2 years ago
The most efficient shape to produce a focused electric field in order to create an ionized beam that would be used as not just an antenna but as a conductor to the ionosphere, is a conical or pyramid shape. I believe that the size of the pyramid should be a harmonic of the Earths resonant frequency. I also believe that, we may want to keep the denominator of the golden ratio at the unreduced number 2 because the number 2 in that case stands for the octave (doubling).
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 2 years ago
I will try a few experiments and if anything worthwhile occurs I will post.
Thanks for your suggestion.
Cheers JRI
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 2 years ago
now construct 4 gyroscope and connect that to 4 corner of pyramid facing N/S/E/W. the vortex of the pyramid should vibrate to 3hz-8hz(Earth's resonance), see what will happen. The base of the pyramid must be concave or near pointed to allow rotation of the whole body.
jexphe2k 2 years ago
Great stuff. Angular momentum is the key to everything, keep up these excellent video's
stawmy 2 years ago 2
Hi stawmy,
I see you understand the important truth of angular momentum. Thanks for your encouragement, and your comment.
Kind Regards JRI
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 2 years ago
Let this be a record of invention, I will upload videos, in the near future, I have successfully created a Searl effect type generator that levitates over aluminium using a coil to spin the magnets which achieves a triple levitation effect, the eddy currents from the coil will repel away from the aluminium, the rotating magnets in the form of a Searl effect generator within also repel and the gyroscopic motion of the spin increase the effect as well as keeping it stable,
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 2 years ago
for my next trick I will use a Halbach magnet array spun over aluminum with an electrostatic field, that can be powered by the earth's field which will provide the relatively low direct current at high voltage, ideal for operating this device, in short a perpetually spinning levitating device, that is gyroscopically stable and will never stop levitating!
JOHNROMANIWASZKO 2 years ago