Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.

A gravity anisotropy in the up and down directions relative to a
gravity source has already been fairly well established
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html but this latest
addition drives in the final nail. There is now no doubt about it.

According to current theory, there's no reason at all why the air
enclosed inside a constantly rotating housing would not remain in
a stationary relationship with the housing. Clearly, there are no
forces whatever acting on the air that could constantly drive the
air relative to the housing walls. But the air IS driven, and quite
significantly. Refer to the above link for detail on why a gravity
anisotropy should drive the air mass.

In the previous series of gravity anisotropy experiments, detecting
the air motion has been the challenge. The very lightweight
polystyrene foam disc went some way toward achieving that goal, but
the disc mass per volume was so much more than air that the disc
became the dominant factor. The only conclusive proof that the air
is actually flowing is to monitor the actual air flow inside the
housing, which has been in the too hard basket for some time. But
it really was quite simple.

A wisp of smoke injected into the air inside the housing would
provide a flag which would be carried along with the air, wherever
it was going. So I set about making a precision cigarette smoking
device that could inject a specific smoke quantity at a specific
location into the air mass. I chose the cheapest brand cigarettes
for the smoking task.

The task of visually detecting where the smoke was being taken would
be undertaken by a strobe light triggered once per housing rotation
cycle, and that would set up the frames of a movie.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravai.mpg
This particularly smoky 1.8 meg video clip, taken with a black
and white CCD camera, shows the smoke flow turning on then off.

The air flow direction is extremely obvious (if it runs correctly
that is).

The assembly that houses the smoke tube only appears to be
oscillating back and forth because the edge of the trigger point
for the strobe light isn't precisely identified for each rotation.
The varying overrun on the mirror strip which reflects the laser
beam and triggers the strobe light is clearly obvious (upper right
of the screen center).

The smoke test was run only after a uniform rotation rate had been
well established and the housing was no longer accelerating. What
the rotation rate was is irrelevant in this case. The air inside the
housing doesn't overrun the rotation rate of the housing even when
the drive is turned off and the housing rotation is slowing. The
same air flow direction is still quite evident.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smoke1.jpg

The strobe light assembly can be indexed around the entire 360
degrees (which is of little consequence for this experiment). The
straight smoke tube shown inside the housing is attached to the
rotating housing center.

The complete post is stored at
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravair.html

-----

Max Keon

Dear Max Keon:

"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.

A gravity anisotropy in the up and down
directions relative to a gravity source has
already been fairly well established
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html

Not well established.

but this latest addition drives in the final
nail. There is now no doubt about it.

I'm glad you are certain.

According to current theory, there's no
reason at all why the air enclosed inside a
constantly rotating housing would not remain
in a stationary relationship with the housing.

Sure there is. Same thing that screws up all your other
experiments. Temperature gradients. Insolation. Brownian
motion. Natural background radiation. The high cost of plywood.

Clearly, there are no forces whatever acting
on the air that could constantly drive the
air relative to the housing walls.

Clearly there will be.

But the air IS driven, and quite significantly.
Refer to the above link for detail on why a gravity
anisotropy should drive the air mass.

Didn't see it in the rambling. Have you tried a tree structure,
so that one can use an index, and go straight to the point?

David A. Smith

Max Keon wrote:
Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.


According to current theory, there's no
reason at all why the air enclosed inside a
constantly rotating housing would not remain
in a stationary relationship with the housing.

Yes there is, it's called friction.
If you did an experiment, you would notice that the first air that
started to move would be the air that was in contact to the moving
parts. The air directly in contact with the moving parts would be moved
by friction. Then the movment would slowly propagate to to the rest of
air farther away, until all the air is almost going the same speed.

Douglas Rudd

Max Keon wrote:
Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.


Of course, there's anisotropy in the gravity force. Things fall down,
not up.

Max Keon wrote:
Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.

A gravity anisotropy in the up and down directions relative to a
gravity source has already been fairly well established
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html but this latest
addition drives in the final nail. There is now no doubt about it.

[...]

There is no doubt you have no understanding of error analysis or the
limits of your equipment.

You haven't substantially improved your design even after some good
suggestions, so you must feel it is good enough. So I am amused that
you haven't attempted to publish this, as you feel it is a sufficient
proof.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.

According to current theory, there's no
reason at all why the air enclosed inside a
constantly rotating housing would not remain
in a stationary relationship with the housing.

Yes there is, it's called friction.
If you did an experiment, you would notice that the first air that
started to move would be the air that was in contact to the moving
parts. The air directly in contact with the moving parts would be moved
by friction. Then the movment would slowly propagate to to the rest of
air farther away, until all the air is almost going the same speed.

You've certainly got that right, but you are missing the point of
the experiment. After the housing has achieved a constant rotation
rate for some time, the rotating housing and the air WILL INDEED
remain locked together. Your task is to explain why they don't, even
when the drive is switched off and the housing is fairly rapidly
decellerating.

-----

Max Keon

"Igor" wrote in message
ups.com...

Max Keon wrote:
Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.


Of course, there's anisotropy in the gravity force. Things fall down,
not up.

And the faster things approach a gravity source, the less will be
gravity's acceleration rate.

-----

Max Keon

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.

A gravity anisotropy in the up and down directions relative to a
gravity source has already been fairly well established
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html but this latest
addition drives in the final nail. There is now no doubt about it.

[...]

There is no doubt you have no understanding of error analysis or the
limits of your equipment.

You haven't substantially improved your design even after some good
suggestions, so you must feel it is good enough. So I am amused that
you haven't attempted to publish this, as you feel it is a sufficient
proof.

I see you're still aimlessly waving your arms about. Have a good
study of the video clip and note just how much the air is moving,
then explain why. The tranformation from video to MPEG has
substantially damage the clarity of the clip, but it should still
be OK.

-----

Max Keon

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:LLwmg.424$RD.282@fed1read08...
Dear Max Keon:

"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
------
------

According to current theory, there's no
reason at all why the air enclosed inside a
constantly rotating housing would not remain
in a stationary relationship with the housing.

Sure there is. Same thing that screws up all your other
experiments. Temperature gradients.

Temperature gradients? Where, why and how??? Care to explain?

Insolation.

Insolation from what? And why? Are you suggesting that some
*gigantic* temperature gradient, or something, is fixed oriented
with the earth's surface and is cycled around inside the rotating
housing enclosure as the housing rotates through it? That's what
it would take to make the air move as it does.

Brownian motion.

More like a Brownian tornado. Have a good look at the rate
of air movement inside the ENCLOSED housing.

Natural background radiation.

That would account for very minor air movement.
But it's not minor by any means, is it!

Clearly, there are no forces whatever acting
on the air that could constantly drive the
air relative to the housing walls.

Clearly there will be.

Don't you start with the hand waving too.

But the air IS driven, and quite significantly.
Refer to the above link for detail on why a gravity
anisotropy should drive the air mass.

Didn't see it in the rambling. Have you tried a tree structure,
so that one can use an index, and go straight to the point?

The "ramblings" are the result of how that experiment evolved.
If the action of gravity is *dynamically* applied at some speed
greater than zero and less than instantaneous, the action of gravity
must reduce with motion toward the gravity source, and increase in
the outward direction. That's what is showing up, and that is
exactly what the zero origin concept predicts. It also gives a speed
for the action of gravity, which is of course light speed. But that
remains only a prediction for now. But the anisotropy is well and
truly proven.

Learn to embrace the truth folk because it is soon to embrace us
all (equally).

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.

A gravity anisotropy in the up and down directions relative to a
gravity source has already been fairly well established
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html but this latest
addition drives in the final nail. There is now no doubt about it.

[...]

There is no doubt you have no understanding of error analysis or the
limits of your equipment.

You haven't substantially improved your design even after some good
suggestions, so you must feel it is good enough. So I am amused that
you haven't attempted to publish this, as you feel it is a sufficient
proof.

I see you're still aimlessly waving your arms about. Have a good
study of the video clip and note just how much the air is moving,
then explain why. The tranformation from video to MPEG has
substantially damage the clarity of the clip, but it should still
be OK.

Stop dicking around on USENET. You obviously cannot see any flaws in
your setup, so in your mind there must not be any - so why haven't you
published?


-----

Max Keon