☝#AntiGravity Part 6: Objects in Rotation Defy ‘Mainstream’ Physics + MES Duality Concept (Notes 2)

in antigravity •  5 months ago  (edited)

Video 1

Video 2

Due to YouTube video length restrictions, Part 6 is split into two videos. The sections in the first video are shown below with their accompanying times in the video.

(1) @ 1:34 - Important Links and Notes
(2) @ 5:45 - Introduction
(3) @ 8:37 - Table of Contents
(4) @ 55:56 - #MESExperiments Science Experiments Video Series
(5) @ 58:08 - General Notes on Scientific Exploration
(6) @ 1:06:01 - Clearing Eric Laithwaite’s Name
(7) @ 2:25:11 - Eric Laithwaite’s Unconventional Interpretation of Newtonian Mechanics
(8) @ 3:06:30 - Cambridge University’s Bogus Fake Science and Coverup of Gyro Magic
(9) @ 4:04:00 - TOP SECRET: The Movie Inception and Spinning Tops
(10) @ 4:07:06 - Overview of Conventional Physics Regarding Spinning Tops, Gyroscopes, and Objects in Rotation
(11) @ 4:52:03 - Overview of Newton’s Laws and Einstein’s Relativity
(12) @ 5:28:39 - Owen Liang’s Gyro Space Top Proves Spin Angular Momentum is an Illusion
(13) @ 7:06:33 - INCEPTION IS REAL: Are We Living in a Dream?
(14) @ 7:07:36 - Exploring Owen Liang’s Many Unnecessary Accounts
(15) @ 9:00:10 - Owen Liang’s Battle with Wikipedia
(16) @ 9:19:47 - Francis McCabe and Gyro 1000X+ Torque Over Unity!

The following sections are shown in the second video.

(17) @ 0:00 - Inertial Propulsion and Inertial Lift are Facts of Life
(18) @ 52:58 - Tippy Tops and Phi Tops Demonstrate Rising with Spin Axis Change
(19) @ 1:54:32 - The Amazing and Underappreciated Gyrocompass
(20) @ 2:50:48 - The Concept of Inertia and Coherency
(21) @ 3:03:39 - Overview of Mainstream Clueless Science Regarding Gyroscopes and Objects in Rotation
(25) @ 7:37:52 - Exploring the True Nature of Gravity, Mass, Magnetism, Electricity, Light, and Reality
(26) @ 7:48:05 - David LaPoint’s Primer Fields, the Ferrocell, and Ken Wheeler’s Magnetism
(28) @ 11:05:58- True Magnetism and the Interconnectedness of All Things

Stay tuned for #AntiGravity Part 7!

Watch on DTube:

  • Video 1:
  • Video 2:
  • Watch on BitChute:

    Watch on YouTube:

    Download my PhD:

    Full #AntiGravity Video Series: https://mes.fm/antigravity-playlist

    View PhD Below

    View All Parts

    Part 1: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-video-1-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept

    Part 2: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-2
    Part 3: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-3
    Part 4: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-4
    Part 5: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-5
    Part 6: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-6
    Part 7: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-7

    #AntiGravity Part 6 Objects in Rotation Defy Physics Zoomed 2.jpeg


    TOP SECRET: Spinning Tops Prove We Live in a Dream #Inception

    Ever wonder why the Blockbuster Movie "Inception" uses their flag ship Spinning Top to represent the link between the real world from the dream world?


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/VBAu0

    In the movie, the main character played by Hollywood megastar Leonardo DiCaprio uses his "Totem", which "dreamers" use to distinguish dreams from reality, as a Spinning Top. If the spinning top keeps spinning, he is in a dream. If it stops spinning, then he is in reality.


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/w9oTY


    (1) Any natural object or living creature that serves as an emblem of a tribe, clan or family.
    (2) The representation of such object or creature.
    (3) The clan whose kinship is defined in reference to such an object or creature


    Retrieved: 9 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/1xBKk


    Inception is a 2010 science fiction action film[3] written, co-produced, and directed by Christopher Nolan, and co-produced by Emma Thomas. The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio as a professional thief who steals information by infiltrating the subconscious, and is offered a chance to have his criminal history erased as payment for the implantation of another person's idea into a target's subconscious.[4]

    When Mal refused to return to reality, Cobb used a rudimentary form of inception by reactivating her totem (an object dreamers use to distinguish dreams from reality) and reminding her subconscious that their world was not real.

    Using his totem—a spinning top that spins indefinitely in a dream world but falls over in reality—Cobb conducts a test to prove that he is indeed in the real world, but he ignores its result and instead joins his children in the garden.


    Leonardo DiCaprio as Dom Cobb, a professional thief who specializes in conning secrets from his victims by infiltrating their dreams. DiCaprio was the first actor to be cast in the film.[13]

    Why was a Spinning Top Chosen for the Inception Movie?

    Now before I explain why I think the spinning top was selected, here is the process I took that led me from trying to figure out how a spinning top stays spinning upright and then later finding myself staring right at the dream that we call reality…

    Why Doesn't a Spinning Top Fall?

    As usual, it is always best to go over the mainstream Wikipedia “explanation” to see what the conventional view of any topic is first.


    Retrieved: 17 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/1pvZ5


    A spinning top is a toy designed to spin rapidly on the ground, the motion of which causes it to remain precisely balanced on its tip because of its rotational inertia.

    An assortment of spinning tops

    The action of a top is described by equations of rigid body dynamics (see the section Rotation in three dimensions). Typically the top will at first wobble until the shape of the tip and its interaction with the surface force it upright; contrary to what is sometimes assumed, longstanding scientific studies (and easy experimentations reproducible by anyone) show that less friction increases the time before the upright position is reached (unless the top is so unbalanced that it falls before reaching it).[4] After spinning upright (in the so-called "sleep" position) for an extended period, the angular momentum will gradually lessen (mainly due to friction), leading to ever increasing precession, finally causing the top to topple in a frequently violent last thrash. In the "sleep" period, and only in it, provided it is ever reached, less friction means longer "sleep" time (whence the common error that less friction implies longer global spinning time).

    In other words, the spinning tops rises against “gravity”. Also, less friction does not necessarily increase time to rise! It actually depends on rotational friction, precession speed, and even overall spinning mass vs non-spinning mass; as my earlier gyroscope experiments demonstrated. In later experiments, I will show that lowering spin speed, as well as adding weight to the gyro or spinning top, can make it rise faster.

    Also, what in the world does “interaction with the surface force it upright” mean?! The most important aspect of spinning tops is completely swept under the rug in this bogus embarrassment of a Wikipedia article.


    Compare this animation of a precessing gyroscope from the above Wikipedia article, with my previously shown experiment of a gyroscope magically rising upwards on low friction or rotational surfaces.

    A precessing gyroscope

    GIF Url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top#/media/File:Gyroscope_precession.gif

    This is “unless the top is so unbalanced that it falls before reaching it” MAGICALLY RISES!

    Please, if you are as fascinated as I am about this gyro magic, please send some Edits to the Wikipedia article with a link to my experiments! =D

    “Rotational Inertia", or Inertia in General, is the Least Understood and Most Misunderstood Topic in Physics

    A top supposedly “stays upright due to its rotational inertia”, which is the resistance to rotation, or put is more simply:

    “A spinning top stays upright because it stays upright”.

    This is not an explanation!


    Retrieved: 17 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/zNzTS


    Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion. This includes changes to the object's speed, direction, or state of rest.

    An aspect of this property is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant speed, when no forces are upon them — and this aspect in particular is also called inertia.

    The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles in classical physics that are still used today to describe the motion of objects and how they are affected by the applied forces on them.

    Inertia comes from the Latin word, iners, meaning idle, sluggish. Inertia is one of the primary manifestations of mass, which is a quantitative property of physical systems. Isaac Newton defined inertia as his first law in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states: [1]

    The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.

    The term "inertia" was first introduced by Johannes Kepler in his Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae[22] (published in three parts from 1617–1621); however, the meaning of Kepler's term (which he derived from the Latin word for "idleness" or "laziness") was not quite the same as its modern interpretation. Kepler defined inertia only in terms of a resistance to movement, once again based on the presumption that rest was a natural state which did not need explanation. It was not until the later work of Galileo and Newton unified rest and motion in one principle that the term "inertia" could be applied to these concepts as it is today.[citation needed]

    Nevertheless, despite defining the concept so elegantly in his laws of motion, even Newton did not actually use the term "inertia" to refer to his First Law. In fact, Newton originally viewed the phenomenon he described in his First Law of Motion as being caused by "innate forces" inherent in matter, which resisted any acceleration. Given this perspective, and borrowing from Kepler, Newton attributed the term "inertia" to mean "the innate force possessed by an object which resists changes in motion"; thus, Newton defined "inertia" to mean the cause of the phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself. However, Newton's original ideas of "innate resistive force" were ultimately problematic for a variety of reasons, and thus most physicists no longer think in these terms. As no alternate mechanism has been readily accepted, and it is now generally accepted that there may not be one which we can know, the term "inertia" has come to mean simply the phenomenon itself, rather than any inherent mechanism. Thus, ultimately, "inertia" in modern classical physics has come to be a name for the same phenomenon described by Newton's First Law of Motion, and the two concepts are now considered to be equivalent.

    MES Note: This is essentially all of mainstream physics in regard to all phenomena, especially inertia, gravity, and electromagnetism: Equating the perceived results with the defining mechanism itself.


    Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, as proposed in his 1905 paper entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was built on the understanding of inertia and inertial reference frames developed by Galileo and Newton. While this revolutionary theory did significantly change the meaning of many Newtonian concepts such as mass, energy, and distance, Einstein's concept of inertia remained unchanged from Newton's original meaning (in fact, the entire theory was based on Newton's definition of inertia). However, this resulted in a limitation inherent in special relativity: the principle of relativity could only apply to reference frames that were inertial in nature (meaning when no acceleration was present). In an attempt to address this limitation, Einstein proceeded to develop his general theory of relativity ("The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity," 1916), which ultimately provided a unified theory for both inertial and noninertial (accelerated) reference frames. However, in order to accomplish this, in general relativity, Einstein found it necessary to redefine several fundamental concepts (such as gravity) in terms of a new concept of "curvature" of space-time, instead of the more traditional system of forces understood by Newton.[23]

    As a result of this redefinition, Einstein also redefined the concept of "inertia" in terms of geodesic deviation instead, with some subtle but significant additional implications. The result of this is that, according to general relativity, inertia is the gravitational coupling between matter and spacetime.

    MES Note: The mystery of “inertia”, how it is defined, and how its frame of reference is defined underpins all of mainstream Newtonian mechanics, Einsteinian Relativity, space dynamics, and quantum mechanics!

    Rotational inertia

    Another form of inertia is rotational inertia (→ moment of inertia), the property that a rotating rigid body maintains its state of uniform rotational motion. Its angular momentum is unchanged, unless an external torque is applied; this is also called conservation of angular momentum. Rotational inertia depends on the object remaining structurally intact as a rigid body, and also has practical consequences. For example, a gyroscope uses the property that it resists any change in the axis of rotation.

    Essentially, the mainstream narrative for “inertia” goes like this: objects in linear or rotational motion want to maintain their motion and orientation unless acted upon by an external force or torque. Thus, a spinning top wants to maintain the orientation it is spinning at, even in opposition to gravity. This is the same as my earlier quote:

    *“A spinning top stays upright because it stays upright”. *


    Bruce Yeany’s Brilliant Illustrations of Mainstream Angular Momentum and Spinning Forces

    One of the best (mainstream) science teachers is Bruce Yeany and his YouTube Channel! He explains the phenomenon of rotational inertia very clearly by using a Spinning Tray.

    MES Note: Linear Momentum is the numerical “amount of inertia” and is defined as the mass multiplied by velocity.


    Retrieved: 12 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/CQGbj

    Being held in place, the water levels out, and if let go the whole bottle and platform setup would just fall down.

    But when pushed forward, the bottle exerts a force on the liquid thus pushing against it and the liquid gets squished on the bottom of the bottle. This is essentially the same as “centripetal force” but this force is always in a circular direction as the bottle is in rotation.

    MES Note: As with “centripetal force”, “gravity pulling downwards” is an assumption… or at least not always the case.

    Thus, letting go of the string would cause the object to fly in tangent to the circle, as a hammer thrower tosses a heavy stone by releasing chain.

    Centripetal Real Force vs. Centrifugal Fictional Force Comparison

    Bruce’s other video explains the principle of the “Centrifugal Force”, which is the “apparent” outwards force on objects in rotation. Objects “appear” to be extending outwards but in “reality”, it is just the velocity of the object being constantly pushed inwards by the Centripetal Force. “Centripetal” vs. “Centrifugal” just depends on the “Frame of Reference”, i.e. fixed frame vs. moving with a rotating object frame.


    Retrieved: 24 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/epvhC

    Non-inertial reference frame

    A non-inertial reference frame is a frame of reference that is undergoing acceleration with respect to an inertial frame.[1] An accelerometer at rest in a non-inertial frame will in general detect a non-zero acceleration. In a curved spacetime all frames are non-inertial[clarification needed]. The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration.[2][3] To explain the motion of bodies entirely within the viewpoint of non-inertial reference frames, fictitious forces (also called inertial forces, pseudo-forces[4]and d'Alembert forces) must be introduced to account for the observed motion, such as the Coriolis force or the centrifugal force, as derived from the acceleration of the non-inertial frame.[5] As stated by Goodman and Warner, "One might say that F = ma holds in any coordinate system provided the term 'force' is redefined to include the so-called 'reversed effective forces' or 'inertia forces'."[6]

    MES Note: “Laws” varying?!

    Inertial reference frames have zero acceleration; i.e. at rest or at constant velocity.
    Non-inertial reference frames are accelerating; i.e. such as rotating on a Merry-Go-Round.


    Retrieved: 17 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/Xn4Vu

    Let us now take a mental ride on a merry-go-round—specifically, a rapidly rotating playground merry-go-round. You take the merry-go-round to be your frame of reference because you rotate together. In that non-inertial frame, you feel a fictitious force, named centrifugal force (not to be confused with centripetal force), trying to throw you off. You must hang on tightly to counteract the centrifugal force. In Earth’s frame of reference, there is no force trying to throw you off. Rather you must hang on to make yourself go in a circle because otherwise you would go in a straight line, right off the merry-go-round.

    Figure 2

    In Figure 2a A rider on a merry-go-round feels as if he is being thrown off. This fictitious force is called the centrifugal force—it explains the rider’s motion in the rotating frame of reference. (b) In an inertial frame of reference and according to Newton’s laws, it is his inertia that carries him off and not a real force (the unshaded rider has Fnet=0 and heads in a straight line). A real force, Fcentripetal, is needed to cause a circular path.

    Thus, in this example, in the viewpoint of the rider, the rider will appear to be accelerating outwards instead of forward. This “viewpoint” is a rotating non-inertial frame of reference and the acceleration outwards is the centrifugal force.

    When viewing the merry-go-round from a person standing outside, the merry-go-round appears to be going around, thus accelerating inwards. This view is a stationary inertial reference frame and the inwards acceleration is the centripetal force acting upon the inertia or linear momentum of the rider/ride.

    A great example of this “fake” centrifugal force is a car steering on a hard turn and experiencing being pushed to the outside.

    Here is the same illustration but with liquids of varying mass; the red liquid is mineral oil, the blue is water, and the clear color is syrup.


    Retrieved: 12 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/3s8Fa

    Spinning objects can causes separation of material types based on their density, such as in this simple centrifuge: the denser liquid is pushed outwards when it is spinning, but when it is stopped spinning, the denser liquid moves downwards.

    Fascinating Stuff!

    The Amazing SpillNot

    A product that demonstrates this rotational magic is the “SpillNot” and you can purchase one here if you are in the USA:


    Retrieved: 12 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/Z9waW

    The following video demonstrates that adding a horizontal accelerometer shows extremely little horizontal acceleration, again showing that the acceleration is mainly perpendicular to the base.


    Retrieved: 12 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/IHcQA

    Amazing stuff!

    “Angular Momentum” is the Rotational Equivalent of Linear Momentum

    The mainstream view of “angular momentum” is essentially the rotational equivalent of linear momentum and is a term to describe the overall behavior of a rotating object being accelerated inwards. This is essentially how I view mainstream angular momentum, but it is not “quite” as there is more mainstream pseudo-science behind this.


    Retrieved: 24 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/UHiQ7

    Angular momentum

    In physics, angular momentum (rarely, moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. It is an important quantity in physics because it is a conserved quantity—the total angular momentum of a closed system remains constant.

    This gyroscope remains upright while spinning due to the conservation of its angular momentum.

    Just like for angular velocity, there are two special types of angular momentum: the spin angular momentum and the orbital angular momentum.

    Note that the orbital angular momentum is just precession, unless of course a different coordinate system is used.


    Instead of describing the most important property of gyroscopes, which is the ability magically to rise upwards (or downwards), Wikipedia defines angular momentum as a “pseudovector” that is “additive” in a “pseudovector sum”.

    So much “pseudo” science so little time.

    At least the writers of Wikipedia are being honest, “angular momentum” is pseudoscience.

    Brief Overview of Newton’s Laws of Motion and Einstein’s Theories of Relativity

    To get a better understanding of mainstream physics, here is the mainstream Wikipedia narrative for both classical and modern physics. Classical physics is based on Newton’s laws of motion, while modern physics is based on Einstein’s theory of relativity. But both are dependent on how “inertia”, and thus “mass”, is defined.

    Newton’s 3 Laws of Motion


    Retrieve: 23 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/cFXHN

    Newton’s laws of motion

    Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that, together, laid the foundation for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between a body and the forces acting upon it, and its motion in response to those forces. More precisely, the first law defines the force qualitatively, the second law offers a quantitative measure of the force, and the third asserts that a single isolated force doesn't exist. These three laws have been expressed in several ways, over nearly three centuries,[i] and can be summarised as follows:

    • First law: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3]
    • Second law: In an inertial frame of reference, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma. (It is assumed here that the mass m is constant – see below.)
    • Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

    The three laws of motion were first compiled by Isaac Newton in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), first published in 1687.[4] Newton used them to explain and investigate the motion of many physical objects and systems.[5] For example, in the third volume of the text, Newton showed that these laws of motion, combined with his law of universal gravitation, explained Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

    A fourth law is often also described in the bibliography, which states that forces add up like vectors, that is, that forces obey the principle of superposition.[6][7][8]


    Newton's 1st Law
    From the original Latin of Newton's Principia:

    • Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

    Translated to English, this reads:

    • Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.[28]

    Newton's 2nd Law
    Newton's original Latin reads:

    • Lex II: Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.
      This was translated quite closely in Motte's 1729 translation as:

    • Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impress'd; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impress'd.
      According to modern ideas of how Newton was using his terminology,[32] this is understood, in modern terms, as an equivalent of:

    • The change of momentum of a body is proportional to the impulse impressed on the body, and happens along the straight line on which that impulse is impressed.

    Newton's 3rd Law

    • Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.
      Translated to English, this reads:
    • Law III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

    Very interesting comparison between the modern interpretation of Newton’s Laws vs his original writings!

    Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation

    Another one of Newton’s many “laws” is his law of “gravity”, which is theorized as being the universal pull of all objects towards all other objects throughout the universe.


    Retrieved: 23 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/jkkxh

    Newton's law of universal gravitation

    Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.[note 1] This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning.[1] It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687. When Newton presented Book 1 of the unpublished text in April 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him.

    In today's language, the law states that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force acting along the line intersecting the two points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[2]

    The equation for universal gravitation thus takes the form:

    where F is the gravitational force acting between two objects, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, r is the distance between the centers of their masses, and G is the gravitational constant.

    The first test of Newton's theory of gravitation between masses in the laboratory was the Cavendish experiment conducted by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1798.[3] It took place 111 years after the publication of Newton's Principia and approximately 71 years after his death.

    Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of the electrical force arising between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, where force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.

    MES Note: It is not a coincidence that Newton’s gravitational force resembles Coulomb’s electrical force.

    Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme accuracy, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun).

    G is the gravitational constant (6.674×10−11 N·(m/kg)2);

    Coulomb’s Law of Electric Force

    It is very interesting, and definitely no mere coincidence, that the formula for (mainstream) gravitation is very similar to that for the “force” between two “electrically charged particles”. Note that “electric charge” is the sum of the discreet charge of subatomic particles, hence the number of these so called particles creates attractive or repulsive force similar to the mass of an object creates attractive force between other masses.


    Retrieved: 14 May 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/6OvwK

    Coulomb’s law

    Coulomb's law, or Coulomb's inverse-square law, is an experimental law[1] of physics that quantifies the amount of force between two stationary, electrically charged particles. The electric force between charged bodies at rest is conventionally called electrostatic force[2] or Coulomb force.[3] The quantity of electrostatic force between stationary charges is always described by Coulomb’s law.[4] The law was first published in 1785 by French physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism, maybe even its starting point,[5] because it was now possible to discuss quantity of electric charge in a meaningful way.[6]

    In its scalar form, the law is:

    where ke is Coulomb's constant (ke ≈ 9×109 N⋅m2⋅C-2),[7] q1 and q2 are the signed magnitudes of the charges, and the scalar r is the distance between the charges. The force of the interaction between the charges is attractive if the charges have opposite signs (i.e., F is negative) and repulsive if like-signed (i.e., F is positive).

    Being an inverse-square law, the law is analogous to Isaac Newton's inverse-square law of universal gravitation, but gravitational forces are always attractive, while electrostatic forces can be attractive or repulsive.[8]

    Einstein’s Theory of Relativity


    Retrieved: 23 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/1zh8z

    Theory of relativity

    The theory of relativity usually encompasses two interrelated theories by Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity.[1] Special relativity applies to elementary particles and their interactions, describing all their physical phenomena except gravity. General relativity explains the law of gravitation and its relation to other forces of nature.[2] It applies to the cosmological and astrophysical realm, including astronomy.[3]

    The theory transformed theoretical physics and astronomy during the 20th century, superseding a 200-year-old theory of mechanics created primarily by Isaac Newton.[3][4][5] It introduced concepts including spacetime as a unified entity of space and time, relativity of simultaneity, kinematic and gravitational time dilation, and length contraction. In the field of physics, relativity improved the science of elementary particles and their fundamental interactions, along with ushering in the nuclear age. With relativity, cosmology and astrophysics predicted extraordinary astronomical phenomena such as neutron stars, black holes, and gravitational waves.[3][4][5]

    Special Relativity


    Retrieved: 23 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/Sd3LX

    Special relativity

    In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. In Albert Einstein's original pedagogical treatment, it is based on two postulates:

    (1) The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference).
    (2) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

    It was originally proposed by Albert Einstein in a paper published 26 September 1905 titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[p 1] The inconsistency of Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism and the lack of experimental confirmation for a hypothesized luminiferous aether led to the development of special relativity, which corrects mechanics to handle situations involving motions at a significant fraction of the speed of light (known as relativistic velocities). As of today, special relativity is the most accurate model of motion at any speed when gravitational effects are negligible. Even so, the Newtonian mechanics model is still useful as an approximation at small velocities relative to the speed of light, due to its simplicity and high accuracy within its scope.

    The world line: a diagrammatic representation of spacetime

    MES Note: The true aether is not “luminiferous” or “light bearing” but is light, is inertia, and is all things. Also, very interesting representation of “space/time”, which resembles the saying “as above so below”, David LaPoint’s primer fields, and Ken Wheeler’s true magnetism.

    Mainstream “Luminiferous” Aether vs MES True Aether

    The “luminiferous” or “light bearing” aether was originally viewed as the medium by which light or electromagnetism radiates in a vacuum, but later left out in favor of “relativity” because the “mathematics” didn’t require it. Note that this is not the concept of “aether” that I subscribe to.


    Retrieved: 21 April 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/4ByE4

    Luminiferous aether

    Luminiferous aether or ether[1][2] ("luminiferous", meaning "light-bearing"), was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[3] It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do.

    A major breakthrough was the theory of relativity, which could explain why the experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it was not needed.

    Lorentz and FitzGerald offered within the framework of Lorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, the new special theory of relativity (1905) could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. Aether fell to Occam's Razor.[B 1][B 2][B 3][B 4]

    The luminiferous aether: it was hypothesised that the Earth moves through a "medium" of aether that carries light

    This is a very bizarre view of the aether. But if you look closely, Earth or aEthr or aether, has been pointing to the true Aether this entire time…

    The aether is not a separate “field” that light or particles travels upon, but rather, it is all things just as water can exist as a solid, liquid, and gas.

    Aether is all that exists. Everything else is but a ripple in the aether.

    General Relativity


    Retrieved: 23 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/vIIoG

    General relativity

    General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

    Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity in relation to classical physics have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data. However, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.

    Einstein's theory has important astrophysical implications. For example, it implies the existence of black holes—regions of space in which space and time are distorted in such a way that nothing, not even light, can escape—as an end-state for massive stars. There is ample evidence that the intense radiation emitted by certain kinds of astronomical objects is due to black holes; for example, microquasars and active galactic nuclei result from the presence of stellar black holes and supermassive black holes, respectively. The bending of light by gravity can lead to the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, in which multiple images of the same distant astronomical object are visible in the sky. General relativity also predicts the existence of gravitational waves, which have since been observed directly by the physics collaboration LIGO. In addition, general relativity is the basis of current cosmological models of a consistently expanding universe.

    Widely acknowledged as a theory of extraordinary beauty, general relativity has often been described as the most beautiful of all existing physical theories.

    Spacetime curvature schematic

    According to general relativity, objects in a gravitational field behave similarly to objects within an accelerating enclosure. For example, an observer will see a ball fall the same way in a rocket (left) as it does on Earth (right), provided that the acceleration of the rocket is equal to 9.8 m/s2 (the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth).

    Essentially General relativity unifies Newton’s law of universal gravitation with that of Special relativity; and does so by assuming a “space/time curvature” nature of the universe. But it doesn’t account for “quantum” or sub-atomic physics.

    Equivalence Principle

    In the above diagram, a very interesting thought experiment regarding the “equivalence” of gravity vs simple acceleration of an enclosure on the behavior of a falling ball. This is in fact a simple illustration of what follows from GR and is called the Equivalence Principle.


    Retrieved: 27 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/tkNRu

    Equivalence principle

    In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

    This is a very interesting theory that states “gravity” or the pull of objects towards each other, is equivalent in its observed effects as with simple acceleration. Thus “gravity” and “inertia” are interlinked.

    Equivalence Principle and Electromagnetism Paradox

    The first question that came to my mind when I learned of the equivalence principle was: what about accelerating electromagnetic fields?

    Apparently, this is just another paradox in mainstream scientific (overly convoluted) theory…


    Retrieved: 27 Mach 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/5oLZS

    Paradox of radiation of charged particles in a gravitational field

    The paradox of a charge in a gravitational field is an apparent physical paradox in the context of general relativity. A charged particle at rest in a gravitational field, such as on the surface of the Earth, must be supported by a force to prevent it from falling. According to the equivalence principle, it should be indistinguishable from a particle in flat space being accelerated by a force. Maxwell's equations say that an accelerated charge should radiate electromagnetic waves, yet such radiation is not observed for stationary particles in gravitational fields.

    MES Note: Very interesting! “Charged particles” radiate “electromagnetic waves” when accelerated but not when “stationary” in gravitational fields.

    One of the first to study this problem was Max Born in his 1909 paper about the consequences of a charge in uniformly accelerated frame.[1] Earlier concerns and possible solutions were raised by Wolfgang Pauli (1918),[2] Max von Laue (1919),[3] and others, but the most recognized work on the subject is the resolution of Thomas Fulton and Fritz Rohrlich in 1960.[4][5]

    Resolution by Rohrlich
    See also: Rindler coordinates

    The resolution of this paradox, like the twin paradox and ladder paradox, comes through appropriate care in distinguishing frames of reference. This section follows the analysis of Fritz Rohrlich (1965),[6] who shows that a charged particle and a neutral particle fall equally fast in a gravitational field. Likewise, a charged particle at rest in a gravitational field does not radiate in its rest frame, but it does so in the frame of a free falling observer.[7][8] The equivalence principle is preserved for charged particles.

    The key is to realize that the laws of electrodynamics, Maxwell's equations, hold only within an inertial frame, that is, in a frame in which all forces act locally, and there is no net acceleration when the net local forces are zero.[note 1] The frame could be free fall under gravity, or far in space away from any forces. The surface of the Earth is not an inertial frame, as it is being constantly accelerated. We know that the surface of the Earth is not an inertial frame because an object at rest there may not remain at rest—objects at rest fall to the ground when released. Gravity is a non-local fictitious “force” within the Earth’s surface frame, just like centrifugal “force”. So we cannot naively formulate expectations based on Maxwell's equations in this frame.

    Additional concerns

    The radiation from the supported charge viewed in the freefalling frame (or vice versa) is something of a curiosity: where does it go? Boulware (1980)[11] finds that the radiation goes into a region of spacetime inaccessible to the co-accelerating, supported observer.

    Seems like typical mainstream science of imposing theory and “reference frames” to physical phenomena, while even the very phenomena they are attempting to theorize about are not well defined or verified.


    Retrieved: 27 March 2019
    Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190327190142/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2963/958637b374307b495b94b96d7afe1b0e1372.pdf

    “Distinguished” authors reaching opposite conclusions regarding “radiation of accelerated particles”, and with “radiation” magically going into a region of “inaccessible” space time…

    The only thing inaccessible is mainstream physics.

    The obvious questions that arises are:

    • What is a “charge”?
    • What is a “particle”?
    • What is a “field”?
    • What is “electromagnetism”?
    • What is “electricity”?
    • What is “magnetism”
    • What is “acceleration”?
    • What is “inertia”?
    • If theories “don’t hold” when the frame of reference changes, are these theories then incomplete and/or wrong?
    • What is “reality”?
    • Why do tax-funded “scientific” journals lock up their research behind pay walls?
    • The most important of all: How does a spinning top rise?

    Mainstream Attempt to Unify Relativity with Quantum Mechanics

    The mainstream physics narrative is essentially a quest to link all mainstream physics together from the planetary scale down to the subatomic in a theory known as the “Theory of Everything”.


    Retrieved: 23 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/qTWXd

    Theory of everything

    A theory of everything (TOE[1] or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[2]:6 Finding a TOE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a TOE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT). GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large scale and high mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. QFT successfully implemented the Standard Model and unified the interactions (so-called Grand Unified Theory) between the three non-gravitational forces: strong, weak, and electromagnetic force.[3]:122

    MES Note: Recall from #FreeEnergy Part 2 that the strong force is what holds most matter together into particles like protons or neutrons; the weak force is responsible for radioactive decay of atoms; the electromagnetic force is the force between electrically charged particles. The Strong force is about 137 times as strong as electromagnetism, a million times as strong as the Weak force, and 1038 times as strong as gravitation. Mainstream physics aside, I’m of the view these forces are all manifestation of the same force. #TheForce

    Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In accordance with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QFT, as they are currently formulated, are mutually incompatible – they cannot both be right.

    Simulated Large Hadron Collider CMS particle detector data depicting a Higgs boson produced by colliding protons decaying into hadron jets and electrons

    MES Note: The above simulation also looks very similar to the earlier “spacetime” diagram, “as above so below”, David LaPoint’s primer fields, and especially Ken Wheeler’s magnetism; and even gyroscopes ability of rising upwards downwards.

    Mainstream Wikipedia Physics Was Lacking So I Looked for Alternative Explanations

    Putting aside the mainstream physics of seemingly complex topics such as the interactions of stars, planets, and galaxies with that of subatomic neutrons, protons, and bosons, let’s dig further into the “simple” and entirely unanswered physics of spinning tops.


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/18waq

    The question should be:


    Seriously, has the world gone mad?!

    Scrolling through the unthinking repetition of mainstream “conservation of angular momentum”, "torque", etc., I then came across Owen Liang…

    Owen Liang, posting in 2013 through his Axis Laing Quora account and then later in 2016 and 2017 using his multiple Owen Laing accounts, may literally have uncovered one of the most monumental findings in all of physics!

    The Mysterious and Brilliant Owen Liang

    Let’s first try to understand one of the world's most unique minds…

    MES Note: I go over a pretty intense review of Owen Liang because, as monumental as his finding, his bizarre character is a worthy study on its own. In fact, much of my world view has now been shaped by this obscure person. And as such, I believe it is a mandatory quest for all to undertake in order to better understand how we too can uncover such blatantly simple yet reality defying findings.

    Here are his many (and unnecessary) Quora accounts.


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/HA5oi



    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/sZPeA

    Even more interesting….


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/Dgb4N

    He graduated in 1988 in Molecular Biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

    A Molecular Biologist is doing the work that physicists should've been doing hundreds of years ago.

    I am literally have no idea why he keeps creating new accounts…. #TheMindOfAGenius

    Owen Liang Held the Top Secret Spinning Top Secret Since At Least 2008

    Owen Liang, the hero the world deserved.


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/dlywk

    That post was from 2013 but his video is from 2008!


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/pRuEE

    Can you see what is happening here??!! The spinning top on the left is literally balancing parallel to the surface!

    Fast forward to Owen’s More Recent Videos and Websites

    Owen Liang elaborated on his top secret finding in later websites.


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/iZ4rM


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/iZ4rM

    In other words, "tricking" the spinning top by using a magnet to overcome gravity as the predominate "attractive" force causes the spinning top to always stay parallel to the magnet, even when rotated literally upside down! The top easily overcomes (mainstream pseudo-science) "angular momentum". #Magic

    MES Note: I am literally his first subscriber on this particular YouTube channel but also of some of his many other channels. #Fate

    Also note how he states that he showed his invention to "physics professors in top universities" and none of them can explain this.

    Adding a second attractive magnet causes the spinning top to move away and magically balance tilted.

    "Angular Momentum" is no match for a spinning top upside down!

    Yup! Owen is very right about his Gyro Space Top. You can't have two "Laws" for essentially the same thing: A Spinning Top.

    The Spinning Top magically knows to tilt to be perpendicular to the vector sum total of the attraction force.


    Retrieved: 1 May 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/MxQ7i

    Owen Liang’s 4 Category of Spinning Tops

    Owen Liang has identified 4 different types of spinning tops, and they are listed below.

    Category 1: Gravity Spinning Top

    This is the basic spinning top that tends to spiral upwards always against the direction of gravity.

    Viewing this type of spinning top alone gives the illusion of “angular momentum” or “rotational inertia” in that the spinning top remains spinning upright even if the base is tilted.


    Retrieved: 4 May 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/6eEGo?t=3m4s

    Category 2: Inverting Spinning Top

    The inverted spinning top is the original Gyro Space Top and uses an evenly distributed magnetic field to overcome gravity as the predominate force acting upon the spinning top. The top spirals always upright in the opposite direction of the attractive magnetic field.

    Category 3: Asymmetrical Spinning Top

    The asymmetrical spinning top is the Gyro Space Top or inverted top but with an additional attractive magnet added to create an asymmetric magnetic attractive force. The spinning top magically knows to spiral upwards and align against the direction of the vector sum of the asymmetric attractive magnetic field.

    Category 4: Hybrid Spinning Tip

    The hybrid spinning top involves orientating the Gyro Space Top and extending it to a distance where both gravity and magnetism play significant roles. The spinning top tends to spiral upwards against the vector sum of both gravity and magnetism.

    Unbelievable! Notice how the spinning top starts to tilt upwards AGAINST GRAVITY as Owen Liang extends the top further from the magnetic base, and again in line with his "Vector Addition" formulation.

    The spinning top literally looks like a UFO wanting to take off! #Amazing

    MES Category 5: Hybrid Asymmetrical Spinning Top

    This category is one that Owen Liang didn’t label but it is a combination of an asymmetrical magnet placement with influence from gravity. The hybrid asymmetrical spinning top tends to spiral upwards against the vector sum of gravity and the asymmetric attractive magnetic field.


    Even if the attractive asymmetric magnetic field is placed above the spinning top, the top knows to align against this magnetic field that otherwise should want it to move towards it if the top was not spinning.

    Gyro Space Top Can Jump Back and Forth from Different Categories

    Simply modifying the distance between the spinning top and the magnet can change it from a gravity top to a magnetic gyro space top!


    Retrieved: 7 May 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/mAXyD

    Auto-balancing at its finest!

    Owen Liang’s “Globe Top” Alludes to the Secret Behind UFO Technology

    This may very well be the basis behind UFO and flying saucer technology; which are a fact of life.


    Retrieved: 16 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/T7s3E

    Owen Liang’s Amazon Gryo Space Top Product Listing is No Longer Available!

    I have ordered his Gyro Top last year but did not receive it, and now his product page is shown as “Currently unavailable”! Guess I have to make my own.


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/Q1Sk1

    MES Note: This screenshot was when I ordered it, but then Amazon refunded my order after several months of waiting. Owen Liang get your act together!

    Updated Screenshot

    Retrieved: 25 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/dtpem

    Great Insights from Owen’s Product Listing

    Owen Liang has some very insightful illustrations regarding his game-changing discovery and especially as to how spinning tops have remained (publicly) a misinterpreted mystery for so long.

    MES Note: Where are the Nobel Prize Winners indeed?! But then again, war criminals such as Barack Obama also has a Nobel “Peace” Prize; so better not to get associated with that tainted “award”.

    Children should be brought up understanding real physics before fake physics grabs hold of their mind!

    Rotation and magnetism are interlinked.

    A new way of thinking is required to fully grasp the gyro space top and its implications.

    Owen Liang Owes Me Money!

    Owen also setup a direct way to purchase his Gyro Space Top using PayPal on one of his many sites.


    Retrieved: 25 March 2019
    Archive: http://archive.fo/BR3Tc

    Buying Space top

    For now, there are two temporary names for this invention: Gyrotop or space top. Need a nomenclature expert to decide the better one.

    MES Note: I prefer to call it the Owen Liang Gyro Space Top!

    I ordered two of these spinning tops through this form last year, but still haven’t received them, or gotten my money back. Is Owen Liang scamming me for my money? If so, then it is the first time I don’t mind getting scammed.

    But if you are watching this video and are able to make a similar gyro space top, I would be interested in buying 100 billion of them from you!

    Liang Distances Himself from "Angular Momentum" and So Do I

    The great Owen Liang has written up his own “Declaration of Independence”.


    Retrieved: 10 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/XYHeu

    Declaration of Independence

    angular momentum should not earn any credit for the work of spinning top physics. if experts insisting, the only contribution from angular momentum is a negative credit. Tops really want to say goodbye to angular momentum, which actually hindering the work of spinning top; however, by the law of nature, there is no way for tops able to get rid off the angular momentum, witch stays with tops forever. tops understand the angular momentum would not leave them alone, but at least, our science should not give the credit to angular momentum for the work of spinning top. Apparently our civilization looks like kind of dump; maybe alien are not so stupid.

    Base on the action of space top, it is time for tops declaring an independent from the law of angular momentum. the day of independent would eventually be picked up by space top believers.

    more nice photos.

    Eventually, Tops would declare an independent from the law of angular momentum. The reading material for this page would be available when enough people know about space top.

    My type of Scientist indeed! Where are the mass public demonstrations demanding an end to the "Angular Momentum" dictatorship?! Why must all public protests be about divisive social issues, instead of demanding real unifying science be taught!

    Owen Liang Also Distances Himself from "Friction" and So Do I

    Owen has some choice words for adherents of the catch-all term of “friction”.


    Retrieved: 14 May 2018
    Archive: Not Available

    I couldn't have said it better myself. How can "friction" overcome "angular momentum"?? Also how come a simple gravity top always points up even when its base is tilted? How do spinning tops and precessing gyroscopes automatically self-balance after any disturbance? In other words, it is not "friction"; although "friction" or a better understanding of “friction” may help shine some light on spinning top physics.

    Also, how could “friction” cause spinning tops to rise but adding a counterweight torque to a gyroscope that is far in excess to any fictional and non-existent “friction torque” instead causes a gyro to drop?!

    Owen Laing’s Inverse Law or Theory of Opposition

    Owen Liang has developed his own explanation or theory for the way a spinning top works, which he refers to as the Inverse Law, Opposition Law, or the Theory of Opposition. I prefer to use the term “Inverse Law” after the name of one of his many websites: InverseLaw.com


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: Not Available

    Owen’s “Inverse Law” states that spinning tops create an “inverting force” always opposite the direction of the falling force.

    The U.S. Patent Office couldn’t explain the Gyro Space Top using conventional physics; remember folks, this is just essentially a piece of mass that is spinning.

    The Illusion of “Angular Momentum”

    In typical Owen Liang fashion, he has to create a third Channel for some strange reason, but in it he makes a great point about how “angular momentum” was able to fool so many for so long.


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/urz6j

    A free gyroscope wants to keep its orientation even as the Earth rotates, hence the name "Gyro” or rotation and used to “scope” or measure the rotation of the Earth. But a spinning top changes its orientation as the Earth moves and is always spinning upright against the floor, thus suggesting angular momentum is indeed a pseudo-concept.

    The Subtle Difference Between Spinning Tops and Typical Gyroscopes

    Since spinning tops don't normally spin for very long, few see the difference between gyroscopes.


    Retrieved: 7 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/gLU4U


    In 1852, Foucault used it in an experiment involving the rotation of the Earth.[12][13] It was Foucault who gave the device its modern name, in an experiment to see (Greek skopeein, to see) the Earth's rotation (Greek gyros, circle or rotation),[14] which was visible in the 8 to 10 minutes before friction slowed the spinning rotor.

    Gyroscope invented by Léon Foucault in 1852. Replica built by Dumoulin-Froment for the Exposition universelle in 1867. National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts museum, Paris.

    Why not do the same experiment with a Spinning Top? If the spinning top test was done first would NASA be photoshopping Flat Earth images instead?! ;)

    MES Note: P.S. I want that gyroscope!

    The Profound Implications of Owen Liang’s Discovery: Gravity = Magnetism = Any Opposing Force?!

    Owen Liang demonstrated that rotation of a magnetic gyro top behaves exactly like that of a non-magnetized spinning top as the Earth rotates, hence a basic "gravity top". In other words, when considering rotation, gravity and magnetism are one and the same. But he pushes this even further and argues that a spinning top behaves similarly when it is up against any "opposition" force; in other words, the very sensation of force is a form of magnetism! #AllIsMagnetism


    Retrieved: 29 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/d2mJq

    Both acceleration top and centrifugal top have not been experimental tested yet. They are only the predictions for now. They are impossible task to investigate by a personal work, but it should be very easy job for NASA or Space X.

    Looks like NASA and SpaceX needs to put aside their rocket science for the much more complex spinning top physics.

    Rotation = Automatic Balancing!

    Another profound consequence of spinning tops is that they can balance in opposition to gravity in much the same way as biological animals or robotic balancing machines, but without the need for sophisticated sensors.

    In other words, the very act of rotation gives spinning tops the ability to automatically balance against the direction of gravity.


    Retrieved: 9 May 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/xNBWS

    A spinning top has intelligent smart balancing.

    Interestingly, Owen awaits criticism of his inverse law theory which I will look to expand upon.

    Owen Liang Explains Why the Gyro Space Top Was Invented Centuries Late

    To understand the mindset behind true scientific discovery, look no further than Owen Liang.


    Retrieved: 13 April 2018
    Archive: https://archive.li/y8imU

    Owen Liang demonstrates that both “stupidity” and “education” are illusions.

    As monumental as his discovery that angular momentum is an illusion, a more profound discovery is that the very notion of “stupidity”, “laws of physics”, and “education” are also illusions.

    How much do you actually know, or not know?


    Is Reality Just a Dream?

    Now what Owen Liang (together with his broken English) may just have uncovered is that we may literally all be living in a dream…

    Remember, in Inception, if Leo's spinning top falls then he is in reality, but if it keeps spinning, he is in a dream.

    And in what we call "reality", as the Earth rotates, a spinning top should want to hold its orientation due to "angular momentum" and thus appear tilted as the Earth rotates and eventually falling down. But that is not what happens, and instead it keeps spinning upright regardless of the rotation of the Earth.

    Are we living in a dream?

    If indeed this is all a dream, then any problem that exists in the world is actually just in your mind, and so too is the solution.

    If you want to understand reality, you know where to look.

    Further Explorering the Genius Mind of Owen Liang

    This part of the video is where I discovered even FURTHER Owen Liang YouTube Channels, Websites, and even his Patent finally getting approved! Literally this guy makes it impossible to keep track of what he is doing…

    Summary of Owen Liang’s Many Random Websites and Online Accounts I Covered Earlier

    For future historical reference, here are the online accounts of Owen Liang that I have already covered.


    Retrieved: 16 December 2018
    Archive: http://archive.fo/0O262


    Retrieved: 16 December 2018
    Archive: http://archive.fo/wpCwc


    Retrieved: 16 December 2018
    Archive: http://archive.fo/pycjk


    Retrieved: 16 December 2018
    Archive: http://archive.fo/rkNgm


    Retrieved: 16 December 2018
    Archive: http://archive.fo/olh1U

    He has even more blogs! I checked them all and the first is about his house (?), the next 3 are empty blogs, and the last is just his above blog. WHO DOES OWEN LIANG THINK HE IS?!


    Retrieved: 16 December 2018
    Archive: http://archive.fo/Rny4B


    Retrieved: 16 December 2018
    Archive: Not Available


    Retrieved: 16 December 2018
    Archive: http://archive.fo/APsG8


    Retrieved: 16 December 2018
    Archive: http://archive.fo/Y7o1r


    Retrieved: 16 December 2018
    Archive: http://archive.fo/d1ofv


    Retrieved: 16 December 2018
    Archive: http://archive.fo/1WEZa

    View All Parts

    Part 1: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-video-1-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept
    Part 2: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-2

    Part 3: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-3

    Part 4: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-4
    Part 5: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-5
    Part 6: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-6
    Part 7: https://steemit.com/antigravity/@mes/antigravity-part-6-objects-in-rotation-defy-mainstream-physics-mes-duality-concept-notes-7

    Full #AntiGravity Video Series: https://mes.fm/antigravity-playlist

    Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
    If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!