What is the science behind Bruce Depalma's Spinning Ball Anomaly?

AI Thread Summary
Bruce Depalma's "Spinning Ball Anomaly" suggests that a spinning ball can achieve a height and speed increase of up to 20% compared to a non-spinning ball, even when launched in a vacuum to eliminate drag effects. This phenomenon has implications for early spacecraft launches, where both the USSR and the US observed unexpected performance boosts. Despite the intriguing nature of these findings, there is skepticism regarding their validity, with many considering them to be conspiracy theories or pseudoscience. The lack of explanation from NASA and other scientific bodies raises questions about the anomaly's acceptance in the scientific community. Overall, the discussion highlights the need for rigorous scientific scrutiny of such claims.
Blutz33
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
If you are reading this thread chances are you are familiar with Bruce Depalma's work and publishing's. If you are not i will briefly fill you in on the " Spinning ball Anomaly ". ([ crackpot link deleted ])

Back in the 70's Bruce Depalma did a series of tests involving spinning objects. In his published findings he goes on to describe that a ball spun at a high rate of speed will actually travel higher (Sometimes 20% higher) and fall faster then a ball that is not spinning. Now of course the balls are identical and launched at the same trajectory. So explain why the spinning ball goes higher?. This test was also done in a vacuum to go on and prove that drag couldn't have an effect on it. The deeper i look into Bruce Depalma's theory the more mind blowing it gets. Bruce Depalma's theory could link to early spaceship launches. In these early launches the USSR and Americans found that there spaceships were behaving irregularly. There ships were gaining extra speed and trajectory by almost 20%. So in plain white english these ships were pulling 20% performance out of nothing.

Why hasn't this been explained by NASA?. I have looked long and hard for more information but it always ends up in a dead end. A very interesting website i found ([crackpot link deleted]) explains what i did just there in more intensive detail.

I am asking for anyone with astrophysics, or just plain physics knowledge to explain this to me?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
This is just conspiracy theory and crackpottery. Nothing to explain.

It should be pretty obvious - the US isn't the only country to have sent an object into orbit. This isn't a piece of science that could be kept secret.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top