NASA gravitational anomalies from Hoagland

[bdw000]

Moderators: please feel free to move this post to NIAMI if you so desire. I chose to post here because the articles are primarily historical, and gravitational anomalies seem to be relevant to EU theory. People here would be inclined, I am sure, to discard Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" with simple EU theory.

I don't take anything Hoagland says for granted. I was very disappointed a year or two ago to seem him pointing at a classic "electrical rille" on Mars and calling it an alien subway.

Anyway, here are two articles about the early NASA days CLAIMING that "non-Newtonian" problems were caused by spinning the rockets, and also from the gyroscopes. It is impossible to "prove" your case when much of the material is classified "top secret," but they seem to make a case that warrants "further research" at least. If anyone can point out real flaws in these two articles please post.

Not mentioned in the articles is the obvious fact that the planets also spin: gee, I wonder if there might be any gravitational effects there?

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun2.htm

[mharratsc]

From what I can see, this fella did his homework when it came to 'investigative reporting', a really commendable effort in researching this all out!

That being said, tho- they seemed to run and jump into some 'fringe' theory without even testing all of the known physics pertinent to the situation. :\

Whether the gyroscopic component of the equation may lend a part in the unexpected performance of those old rockets, or whether they simply hadn't taken into consideration the spin of the Earth assisting in a launch, or whether there was an EM field component that affected it- none of the above possibilities comes anywhere near hyperdimensional whoozits or whatnot, or Zero Point Energy (though it might, I'm not knowledgeable enough to say regarding ZPE research).

Likewise with that DePalma fellow- he was a physicist as well! He took no measurements of magnetic or EM conditions for these experiments?? And yet by the end of the paper was talking about ZPE and whatnot.

Not very thorough testing... :\

Before you run down that path with the author, I encourage you to read an article written by Wal Thornhill:

Antigravity?

Wal surmises as to how gyroscopes may achieve some of their 'weight loss' success, in purely EM terms.

[StevenO]

According to Miles Mathis the orbits of the first rockets are actual proof of his statement that π=4 in real life circular motions.

He has an article about it here: Proof from NASA that π is 4:

Proof from NASA that π is 4
by Miles Mathis


Those who have found my paper on π to be shocking will find this one even more shocking. Here I will show that NASA’s own rockets have provided simple proof of my assertion concerning π, and have been providing it since 1958, the year of the first successful orbit.

It has been known for some time that the orbit of Explorer 1 contained a huge anomaly, billions of times larger than the Pioneer Anomaly, in fact. An article in Newsweek in 1999 told us that the Pioneer Anomaly was “one ten-billionth the effect of gravity on Earth.” While that published number is dubious, in my opinion, the Explorer Anomaly is known to be much much larger. The launch of Explorer 1 in 1958, presided over by none other than Werner von Braun, provided an orbit that was more than 1/3 higher than expected. The orbit was so much larger that the rocket was at first thought to be lost. The expected signal was late, not by a few seconds, but by 12 minutes. Later that decade, Explorers 3 and 4 confirmed the anomaly, as did the three navy rockets of the Vanguard program.

The year 1959 saw two more confirmations of this huge anomaly, as the Soviet Luna mission missed the Moon by a large margin. The US mission Pioneer 4 also missed, by an even larger margin.

Clearly, the math was very wrong. The standard model has buried this anomaly, telling us that it was a matter of propellants not fully understood; but rocket propulsion at that time, though not an exact science, was not unknown by a third. We might have expected an error of a few percentage points, but not of one third. Nor was field gravity undergoing some sort of revolution in the late 50’s. They can’t have tinkered with the field equations, since the field equations are now exactly what they were then.

The equations were soon fixed, but not as a matter of propulsion or gravity. Those of us outside the programs can’t know how, but given what we do know of human nature, of institutions like NASA, and of modern science and math, we must assume that the equations were simply pushed. If they were off by 1/3, the engineers changed them by 1/3, that is all. If the propellant was causing 1/3 more thrust, they used 1/3 less propellant. That is good heuristics and may be called good engineering—since engineering is concerned not with theory but with results. The Russians were the first to push their equations in the right amount, finally hitting the Moon in late 1959. It wouldn’t have been at all difficult to push the equations in this way, since they are not highly complex. It would be nearly as simple as I have stated it here.

This anomaly has been unreported on for decades, and has been known to only a few. Most recently it has been publicized by Richard Hoagland(1), and has, in that way, reached a larger audience. Hoagland uses it as a foundation for his own new theory, which he calls the Hyperdimensional Model. He claims this model can explain the Explorer Anomaly, though his website is very squishy when it comes to precisely how. In a nutshell, he claims that the higher orbit of the rocket was caused by the rocket’s spin. In support of this he provides a simple experiment by Bruce DePalma of a spinning steel ball. He shows strobe evidence that a ball bearing spinning 27,000rpm will launch higher than a non-spinning ball bearing.

There are several very basic problems with Hoagland’s theory, even at this early stage. One, he fails to consider that DePalma’s experiment was done in air and that air is material. I have no doubt that a spinning ball bearing would fly slightly higher than a non-spinning one, but I think it is clear that the reason for this is a simple drill effect, not an effect of any mysterious hyperdimension. The first thing to look at is whether the spinning ball, moving quickly forward, sets up a vortex in front, which would ease its path through the air. DePalma and Hoagland should state that this possibility was exhausted, and they don’t do this, so it is difficult to read much beyond that. The experiment should also be done in vacuum, but even that would not be proof of a hyperdimension. It would only be proof of the power of the electrical field the ball was moving through. We do not need to look for other dimensions to explain anomalies like this, since even in vacuum we have very powerful non-gravity fields that require exploring. Spin is known to be an important factor in E/M theory, so Hoagland’s hypothesis does not look promising from the start.

Another reason it looks unpromising is that the rockets he is talking about were not launched as drills. He claims a rate of spin of up to 750rpm, but it is not clear what exactly is spinning. We know it is not the whole rocket itself, since we have seen rockets launch. Rockets do not spin on the launch pad, they do not take off spinning at high rates, and they normally do not spin at high rates in later stages. If some stage of the rocket is spinning in some “tub”, as he quotes, this is not really to the point. Internal parts of the rocket would not create any drill effect, and it is not clear that they would act like DePalma’s balls in any way. Beyond this, Hoagland admits—and even publishes an illustration showing—that the Vanguard rockets were only spinning in a short third stage, at 100rpm. How can this level of spin, even if we admit to it, cause a 33% change in orbit?

Another immediate problem is that DePalma’s balls do not fly 1/3 higher or farther, even at such a high rate of spin. They are spinning 36 times faster than Hoagland claims Explorer was (and 270 times faster than Vanguard's third stage), but have a smaller drill or hyper-dimensional effect. Hoagland shows no math, simple or otherwise, to show why this is. And he never provides a mechanism. He makes up a name (a “propagating torsion field distortion”) but does not show how this might work mechanically.

The rest of Hoagland’s theory does not really require comment, but I will say that the title itself is a tip-off. Anytime anyone calls something a hyper-dimensional anything, it means they don’t really know what they are talking about. If you have a firm explanation of something, you don’t need a fuzzy name for it. Fuzzy names are generally a nod to a fuzzy audience. Of course this barb can be aimed just as easily at most quarters of the standard model, as well as at Hoagland. Almost everyone, standard and non-standard, mainstream and fringe, is now involved in fuzzy thinking for a fuzzy audience.

I will give one more example before I move on. I don’t want anyone to think I am dismissing Hoagland prejudicially. I have actually combed his website, and made my mind up post-judicially. Concerning this hyper-dimension, he says, “The act of mere ‘rotation’—in the HD Model—literally ‘opens a type of “gate,” or “geometric doorway ...'" between other dimensions”. Gobbledygook of the first order, sprinkled heavily with unnecessary quotation marks.

Now, I am not singling out Hoagland for derision, he just happens to have been on my slate today. His theories and sentences are no worse than the theories and sentences one sees in QED or string theory, at the highest and most respected levels. In fact, his flavor of terminology would appear to have been borrowed from mainstream science, which has become a fairytale of its own. Nor should my comments on Hoagland be read as a defense of his critics. Hoagland may be correct about any number of other things, concerning other cover-ups at NASA. I certainly wouldn’t put it past them. But I haven’t done my research there, and it isn’t pertinent to this paper anyway.

After all that, we may be pretty sure that spin is not what caused the Explorer Anomaly. So we still have an experimental failure of about 33%. As I hinted above, the first thing we should have looked at is the E/M field. But, as I have shown in a series of other papers, even the E/M field is not strong enough to cause such a large gap. I have shown that the E/M field of the Earth is .009545m/s^2, negative to gravity, which would cause a .1% change in g. But this change would not be apparent in any equations at NASA, since they are and always have been measuring a compound field. 9.81 is the correct value for this compound field, so their ignorance about its make-up cannot be a factor.

No unknown perturbations or tidal forces from the Moon can have caused a 33% failure either, since we would have seen these forces in other experiments. A directional perturbation like this must have caused predictable or post-dictable changes in the shape of the expected orbit as well, and this is not what we find. We do not find the rockets pushed toward or away from the Moon.

So what could cause such a large failure in such a simple experiment? We have to look at the math to tell. Although the rocket flew over 1/3 higher at apogee, the math shows "almost a 20% error", according to Hoagland(1). I have scanned his math, and he appears to be right. The error in the Explorer propulsion equations is 19%. The orbital equation currently used is a=v^2/r, where v = 2πr/t. Solving using the current value for π gives us a=39.5r/t^2. Using my correction to π as well as my correction to the equation a=v^2/r,* we get a=32r/t^2. The difference between 39.5 and 32 is 19%. We have a match.

A close reader will say, "According to your theory, the circumference is 4 times the diameter in a kinematic situation. That means that any curve—including an orbit—must be larger than we previously thought. Shouldn't the rocket miss short and not long?" No, 32 is less than 39.5, so the acceleration in my correction is less than the acceleration in the old equations. That is, the centripetal acceleration is less than the engineers thought at the time, therefore the rocket must fly higher. This is not to say that the current value of 9.8 is wrong, it is just to say that relationship of 9.8 to the other numbers like radius and velocity and time was wrong.

Critics will say that we now launch satellites with great precision and reliability. There is no room for a 19% correction. But that is because the correction was made long ago, in the heuristic equations of rocket propulsion. If Russia solved this anomaly in 1959, probably by creating some sort of constant, there is no need for NASA or JPL to re-solve it this decade or last decade or any other decade. NASA and JPL have long since moved on to other anomalies, ones that are so small they can even report them in the mainstream press with no major embarrassment. A report like that in Newsweek, of a one ten-billionth error, is as much a brag as an admission of failure. With only a slight tweek, Newsweek could have changed the tone of the article to: “we are within one ten-billionth of the truth—yea!—aren’t we smart!”

This begs the question of the real status of rocketry. Do NASA and JPL and Russia know that π is wrong in the orbit or the kinematic circle, or are they just flying on fumes? Is it crashing and persistent ignorance or is it another conspiracy? I don’t know. If Hoagland is right, and NASA and the government are keeping alien civilizations from us, then they probably have π buried at Area51 with everything else. They can’t admit that π is wrong, because that would make everyone look very stupid. The public might stop reading science journals and funding hadron colliders.

But it is also possible that they still haven’t figured it out. They may honestly think that Russian constant will someday be filled out by string theory or bosons or dark matter. Or they may even hold out some hope that torsion distortion in a hyperdimension may be the key.

*See http://milesmathis.com/avr.htmlwhere I show the equation should be a=v^2/2r.
(1). http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm

[seasmith]

So what could cause such a large failure in such a simple experiment? We have to look at the math to tell. Although the rocket flew over 1/3 higher at apogee, the math shows "almost a 20% error", according to Hoagland" (1). M. Mathis

The fact that apogee was 1/3 higher and perigee was very close to projection (223 vs 220 miles) may indicate that the unplanned acceleration took place more so in a particular direction of travel, relative to the Earth's surface; and then settled out as it achieved, a by now very elliptical, orbit.

s

[StevenO]

Here is an article from Space Review trying to debunk the Hoagland claim, but kind-of admitting Miles claim about "increased thrust" of the rocket booster Please also notice that apogee was off by 60% instead of 1/3

The twelve-minute hiatus of Explorer 1

[kevin]

If I may offer a totally bizzare alternative?

Instead of viewing the earth as an independant object apparently turning and hurtling along, try instead to comprehend of all been ONE, litterally, the whole substance of universe been one substance.
What We presently consider as seperate actually been local re-orientations of the finite sub structure of this universal substance.
Then consider this substance as been fully permeated by a force that enables the local re-orientation of each finite point.
This all takes place at all scale, with local field compounds maintaining the local orientations.

If You then take the earth in isolation, it is not the created mass moving, but the field , and all within that field moving with it, and all created within that field having their own fields.
The ejection out of the field will be hugely influenced by the positions of the sun and moons fields in particuler.
If You can comprehend of this bizzare theory, then further consider that all our current thinking is based on the physical with no comprehension of the re-orientated alteration relative to the field of this planet, and thus slight variations will exist that will be beyond computation because the whole basis of creation is flawed.
basically as the field exterior is neared the influence will diminish, similer to computation for gravity, but there is no gravity, it is field switching, and the field is centred focussed , the field creates what we consider mass and gravity create, but there will be fractional differences.
Litterally all is ONE, and that ONE can be and is anything in creation , there is no seperation between anything, and the apparent movements of anything are actually switching rates, the ability of adjacent finite points to switch to their immeadite neighbours, all in a super holographic manner that We have no history of even contemplating.
All time travel and superluminal switching is then local field based with the ability to produce a strong enough field about any specific area been able to re-locate with no time or distance involved.

The clues to all i propose here will be in the timing of detonation of nuclear bombs, they will need to have precise timing and location , hence no chance of any nuclear war, the precise location been known and timed by both sides, as they will in fact be field based systems, hence the secrecy.

This is a matrix, not a vacuum of any sort, our thinking is of short distance survival detectors called our senses.
Please just ignore this post if it seems too bizzare, but I hope You have read it.
Only living entities can move independant, otherwise they move within the movement of whatever field they are encased in, thus this planet is alive, all within its field are maintained by that field, each living entity can locally switch at whatever switching rate it has evolved to, but by locally exploding outwards what the field has imploded into itself materials We can temporarailly empower switching , but huge resistance to this switching will be imparted by the field of the Earth, unless the created field about the switching object is capable of overcoming the earths field.
the resistance to switching will be friction.
Thank goodness this the mad ideas section?????
kevin

[StevenO]

Miles, quick as he always is, updated his article within two hours, to react on the Harris article in Space Review, saying it actually strengthens his belief that NASA is trying to cover up the cold hard facts.

[bdw000]

Thank you StevenO for posting that Mathis quote.

Anytime anyone calls something a hyper-dimensional anything, it means they don’t really know what they are talking about.

Amen brother!


If this anomaly is real, and if I had to guess, I'd say that EU ideas will end up being the correct explanation, even if combined with spin ("spinning charge").