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.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top