A spinning ball (spinning on the table) will feel heavyer to another ball (sitting on the table). A ball spinning at say 10,000rpm would i think feel say 1% heavyer. A ball spinning at say 1,000,000rpm might feel twice az heavy.
But a spinning ball wont feel lighter to the table (ie kompared to when it stops spinning).
And levitation or zero gravity wouldnt be possible (for the spinning ball) no matter how fast the ball woz spinning.
A ball spinning at 1,000,000rpm might feel az if it had zero mass, ie az felt by a (stationary) ball suspended just above the spinning ball.
And if it were spinning fast enuff it might repel the suspended ball.
And if it were spinning much much fasterer then the repulsion might be greater than the earth's attraktion -- in which case the suspended ball would fall upwards -- a sort of antigravity machine (but the spinning ball wouldnt be affekted).
This stuff follows from aether theory.
Gravity iz due to the aktion of aether. Aether iz sucked into all matter, where it dissappears (aktually it converts to magnitizm ie elektron spin), and accelerating aether exerts force on matter, ie it drags matter along with it (hencely gravity).
Inertia iz the same sort of force or effekt (but opposit to gravity). Aktually inertia iz different to gravity in that gravitational attraktion iz due to aether being destroyed inside matter -- whereaz with inertia there aint no such destruktion (of aether).
A spinning ball sucks aether into itself at its equator region (due to centripital inertia) -- and hencely it spits aether out at its poles (koz, like i sayd, this sucked-in aether iznt absorbed or destroyed, hencely it haztago somewhere).
The same sorts of aether-gravity effekt and aether-inertia effekt occur at the earth's equator and poles. But if u google u might be konfuzed koz scientists hav made a mistake and they talk of aether being sucked in at the poles (just in case u google and karnt follow them dont worry they hav it wrong).
You really make my head hurt with this Mac. Shoot, feel the stroke and take what happens. sid
Sid, it gets worser -- remember all of that Newton G stuff and gravity stuff and mass and distance stuff u were tort at skool -- mostly wrong -- u might az well hav played pool.
(1) Newton's gravity needs dark matter -- but there aint no dark matter (hencely Newton iz wrongish).
Good scientists look for how newton iz wrongish-- silly scientists look for dark matter (some will even get a Nobel for looking, beleev it or knot).
(2) Back here on earth the borehole anomaly (for g) allso shows that Newton's gravity iz wrongish.
(3) And Newton's gravity duznt inklood a term for the effekt (on g) of planetary spin and star spin.
The Newton of whom i speak iz one of theze three Newtons.
Wayne Newton who wrote...
Loooove ing You Its so beautiful do do do doddo lalala la it so beautiful me, you and the ...
Olivia Newton-John who wrote....
LivWise: Easy Recipes For A Healthy, Happy Life.
Sir Isaac Newton who wrote......
I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
What about the guy who created Fig Newtons...
I hadnt heard of Roser, but he haz dunn more good for physix and the earth than that fraud and fake and plagiarizer Einstein.
I would gladly nominate Roser for the award of the swedish banks nobel memorial award for krappynomix science.
The cookie duz involve mass (ie mass produktion) but unfortunately aint named after my hero sir isaac.
Charles M. Roser was a cookie maker born in Ohio. He won fame for creating the Fig Newton recipe before selling it to the Kennedy Biscuit Works (later called Nabisco). A Fig Newton is a soft cookie filled with fig jam. A machine invented in 1891 made the mass production of Fig Newtons possible. James Henry Mitchell invented a machine which worked like a funnel within a funnel; the inside funnel supplied jam, while the outside funnel pumped out the dough, this produced an endless length of filled cookie, that was then cut into smaller pieces. The Kennedy Biscuit Works used Mitchell's invention to mass-produce the first Fig Newton Cookies in 1891. Originally, the Fig Newton was just called the Newton.
There is an old rumor that James Henry Mitchell, the funnel machine's inventor, named the cookies after that great physicist, Sir Isaac Newton, but that was just a rumor.
The cookies were named after the Massachusetts town of Newton, which was close to Kennedy Biscuits. Kennedy Biscuits had a tradition of naming cookies and crackers after the surrounding towns near Boston. The name changed from Newton to Fig Newton, after the original fig jam inside the cookie gained good reviews. Later the name changed to Fig Newton Cookies.
It was interesting reading your thread in forum. Thanks for posting!
I hav modyfyd my ideas. I now reckon that a spinning body duzz (or kan)(or might) weigh less.
The vector addition of the centripital g and the gravitational g givs a rezultant larger g (for eech bit of matter). Here the vertical komponent of g (the gravitational g) might be unchanged, or, depending on the propertys of aether, the vertical komponent of g might be weakened.
Even so, no matter how fast the spin, the spinner's wt will never be zero (or negativ).
On the other hand, like i sayd, an objekt placed abov the spinner might find that it haz negativ wt.
Hencely one day we might hav (some strategik) footpaths where walkers will feel allmost wtless -- carrying large objekts that feel very light.
If the spinners are on an angle, the walkers would even feel that they are walking downhill -- skaters would roll along with zero effort.
But, lady's dresses would be lifted by the continuous vertical wind along the footpath.
The power lifting the dresses etc would kum from the earth's gravity. The power powering the spinners would havtabe manmade, but this power would only be needed to get the spinners spinning and keep them spinning -- only a few watts needed here.
The power blowing the wind that lifts the dresses would be for free, provided by the earth's gravity, like i sayd. It might be a bit hard to understand, but the spinner duznt hav to find the power needed to lift the dresses.
Further to the vertical wind lifting dresses. Koz u dont need power to make that wind, this meens that u kan hav over-unity energy produktion, ie where u get more power out than what u put in. This might seem impossible, but the power kums from the earth's gravity. The machine simply sort of shields a part of that gravity.
Thusly, u kan hav vertical chimneys with a spinner at the bottom, making the air rize, and u hav an air-turbine (giving electricity) in the chimney.
And u kan hav a circular pipeline, with lots of spinners pushing water round and round, and hav a water-turbine (giving electricity) in the pipeline. Here we fool the water, it thinx it iz going downhill.
It shood be praktikable to kombine the air and water turbines. Here u hav lots of chimneys etc, with spinners at the bases, and u hav an underground water pipeline linking the chimneys. The upwards "force" drives the air, and the downwards "force" drives the water (if water pipeline suitably dezigned). Otherwize the downwards force from eech spinner would be wasted.