Exploring Bruce Depalma's Spinning Ball Anomaly

[Blutz33]

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?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[astrokreng]

it is important to approach any theory or claim with an open mind and a critical eye. While Bruce Depalma's work may seem intriguing and potentially groundbreaking, it is important to thoroughly examine the evidence and consider alternative explanations before jumping to conclusions.

Firstly, it is important to note that Depalma's work has not been widely accepted or replicated by the scientific community. This could be due to a number of reasons, such as flaws in the experimental design, inadequate controls, or a lack of sufficient evidence to support the claims. Without further research and confirmation from other scientists, it is difficult to accept Depalma's findings as fact.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the laws of physics and how they apply to this phenomenon. According to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from one form to another. In the case of a spinning ball, the energy used to spin the ball would need to come from somewhere, and it is unlikely that it would result in a 20% increase in height and speed. Additionally, the effects of air resistance and other external forces should also be taken into account.

As for the link to early spaceship launches, it is important to note that there are many factors that contribute to the performance of a spacecraft, and it is unlikely that the spinning ball anomaly can fully explain the observed increase in speed and trajectory. It is important to approach this claim with caution and consider all other possible explanations.

In regards to the lack of information from NASA, it is possible that they have not extensively researched or commented on Depalma's work because it has not been widely accepted by the scientific community. NASA tends to focus on theories and findings that have been thoroughly researched and have strong evidence to support them. This does not necessarily mean that Depalma's work is invalid, but it does call for further investigation and validation by the scientific community.

In conclusion, as a scientist, it is important to approach claims such as Depalma's spinning ball anomaly with a critical and analytical mindset. While it may seem promising and intriguing, it is important to thoroughly examine the evidence and consider alternative explanations before accepting it as fact. Further research and validation from other scientists is necessary to fully understand and potentially explain this phenomenon.