Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Anomaly: Fact or Fiction?

AI Thread Summary
Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment claims that a spinning ball can travel higher and fall faster than a non-rotating ball, presenting a challenge to Newtonian physics. This assertion has raised skepticism, with some labeling it as "crackpottery" or a potential con, especially given DePalma's association with controversial projects like a "free energy" device using rotating magnets. While DePalma's academic background includes prestigious institutions like MIT and Harvard, critics argue that such unconventional ideas lack scientific credibility and should be dismissed. The discussion highlights the tension between innovative theories and established scientific principles, questioning the validity of DePalma's claims in the context of current physics understanding.
Azael
Messages
257
Reaction score
1
When just browsing around I stumbled over a claimed experiment done by Dr. Bruce DePalma where he claims he has shown that you can make a spinning ball travel higher and fall faster then a non rotating ball. He claims this has no explanation in Newtonian physics.

http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_5_7_4.html

Its this pure crackpottery?? This DePalma guy also has some rather fishy project like a "free energy" device using some kind of rotating magnet:confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Azael said:
When just browsing around I stumbled over a claimed experiment done by Dr. Bruce DePalma where he claims he has shown that you can make a spinning ball travel higher and fall faster then a non rotating ball. He claims this has no explanation in Newtonian physics.
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_5_7_4.html
Its this pure crackpottery?? This DePalma guy also has some rather fishy project like a "free energy" device using some kind of rotating magnet:confused:

Sounds more like a con than a crackpot. I would forget about it.
 
Dr. Bruce DePalma went to MIT and Harvard. If a thousand years ago you told someone the Earth was round they would probably call you an idiot. Now look where we are, the idea of physics could change so much in the next 1000 years that i wouldn't count out any crazy idea.
 
Science didn't exist 1000 years ago, so that analogy is flawed. And this thread is 3 years old.
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...

Similar threads

Back
Top