[Curiosity File]

The Coriolis effect on ballistics is yet another thing that proves the Earth spins and has curvature.
At 1,000 yards the target raises or drops as much as 6"depending on direction, east or west, coming toward you it raises and away from you it drops.
Shooting north or south the target does not drop or raise, rather moves left or right 3" depending on direction.
In addition at the poles off set is greater.
This would not be possible on a stationary flat surface. 

https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2944/how-does-the-earths-rotation-affect-the-path-of-a-bullet/

[Curiosity File]

This is even more fascinating. The fact that the velocity is greater at the equator than it is as as you get closer to the poles is also proof of curvature/a globe. 1,037 mph at the equator vs, "For example, at 45 degrees North (halfway between the Equator and the North Pole, a.k.a. along Montana’s southern border) you’re only moving about 733 mph."
So when you fire a bullet in the northern hemisphere it deflect to the right of the target no matter if you are facing north or south. This is due to the differences in velocity you and the gun are traveling when the bullet leaves the barrel.
If when you fire to the north from the equator it's moving to the east(to the right) at a faster speed than the location of the target, thus deflects to the right of the target because the target hasn't caught up to it.
If you shot towards the south,(towards the Equator) the eastward movement of the bullet is slower than that of the target closer to the equator which causes the bullet to hit to the right.
This is reversed in the southern hemisphere.

https://loadoutroom.com/thearmsguide/external-ballistics-the-coriolis-effect-6-theory-section/

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/01/jeremy-s/coriolis-effect-for-beginners-extreme-long-range-shooting-for-beginners/

Irrefutable proof the Earth is spherical and spins at a high rate of speed.
 
   

[sandokhan]

Curvature effects = DePalma spinning effect on ballistics.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069 (part II, formula)

[Curiosity File]

Curvature effects = DePalma spinning effect on ballistics.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069 (part II, formula)

Hi sndokhon. I appropriate your response. However that's a lot to read through and maybe even hard to grasp.
Maybe you could help me out here, as it was hard enough for me to understand why you hit to the right of the target as much as 3" shooting from the equator to the north at 1,000 yards.  Then again hitting 3" to the right of the target shooting from north of the equator south to the equator.
Maybe you could be gracious enough to pull something out of all that info you shared that actually disproves that happens and that the trigonometry used to calculate this is wrong?
Or maybe something that proves how this can happen on a flat Earth that's stationary?
Take one step at a time.

Thank you in advance.     

[sandokhan]

The Coriolis effect on ballistics is yet another thing that proves the Earth spins.

The Coriolis force exists only when one uses a rotating reference frame.

Either the Earth's supposed rotation, OR the ether drift's rotation above the surface of the Earth.

"Artillery projectiles are spinning at a very high speed when they exit the barrel of the gun. The spinning stabilises the projectile in flight and makes it more accurate."

http://nigelef.tripod.com/fc_ballistics.htm

For artillery projectiles spin rates in the order of 20,000 revolutions per minute are needed, rifle bullets are an order of magnitude greater.

The rotation of the projectile (its spinning rate) will radically alter both its mass and its inertia.

The rotation produces a TORSION FIELD which will attract the Whittaker potential waves (ether longitudinal waves) thus forming an ether vortex around the projectile which will impart antigravitational properties.

The magnitude of this effect is totally unaccounted for by modern science, in fact it is attributed to curvature calculations.

The high spinning rate of the projectile will be subjected to the Coriolis effect of the ether drift.

 Only a light interferometer, which registers both the Coriolis effect and the rotational Sagnac effect, can answer the question: does the Earth rotate around its own axis, or does the Sun orbit above the flat surface of the Earth?

The formula for the Coriolis effect applied to light interferometers:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2069660#msg2069660

The formula for the Sagnac effect applied to light interferometers which are located away from the center of rotation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070082#msg2070082

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907

[sandokhan]

It should be noted that without the use ether drift theory, one cannot explain the formula for the long-range ballistic formula on a flat earth:





No other FE has ever dared to tackle this important issue, long-range ballistics on a flat earth, because the difference between the two formulas (RE vs FE) is very important.

With the help of the ether drift theory, we can MODIFY the g acceleration and replaced it by f(k):

R = {v_o²(sin 2θ_o)}/f(k)

k is the variable electrogravitational value, which depends on the altitude, the atmospheric ether tide, the density of ether at a certain altitude, and the spin rate

The curvature factor is ~EQUAL to the antigravitational effect produced by the spin rate of the projectile which forms a torsion field which partially cancels out the g force.

[Humble B]

Dear mister Sandokhan,

Am I right to say that your theory claims that there is a relation between the spin of a projectile around its own axis and a Coriolis force changing the trajectory of that projectile:

For artillery projectiles spin rates in the order of 20,000 revolutions per minute are needed, rifle bullets are an order of magnitude greater.

The rotation of the projectile (its spinning rate) will radically alter both its mass and its inertia.

The rotation produces a TORSION FIELD which will attract the Whittaker potential waves (ether longitudinal waves) thus forming an ether vortex around the projectile which will impart antigravitational properties.

The magnitude of this effect is totally unaccounted for by modern science, in fact it is attributed to curvature calculations.

The high spinning rate of the projectile will be subjected to the Coriolis effect of the ether drift.

In that case I've a few question I like you to answer:

1- Why formula's to calculate the Coriolis force in ballistics do not take the spin of the projectile in account, only its mass, velocity, latitude and hemisphere? (and of course the angular velocity of the spinning surface, which is considered a constant of 0.0000727 1/s) https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/coriolis-effect

2- Why the Coriolis effect on earth is not only observed on spinning projectiles, but similarly also non-spinning projectiles?

3- The spin of ballistic missiles is desired because the gyroscopic effect of that spin gives that projectile more stability and a more precise trajectory. But if that spin is "forming an aether vortex around the projectile" making it "sensitive for the Coriolis effect", then the opposite is true; the spin is responsible for pushing the projectile out of his initial trajectory. Then why our military is using spinning bullets when they are less accurate because of the Coriolis effect?

4-

The Coriolis force exists only when one uses a rotating reference frame.
Either the Earth's supposed rotation, OR the ether drift's rotation above the surface of the Earth.

The high spinning rate of the projectile will be subjected to the Coriolis effect of the ether drift.

If I understand this well, your theory is explaining that a rotating aether above a stationary earth is what creates the Coriolis force. But how does that explain that on the northern hemisphere a bullet traveling from south to north is drifted to the east, while that same bullet would be drifted to the west when it moves from north to south?
And how does this spinning aether explain that on the southern hemisphere this effect is opposite: a bullet traveling from south to north is drifted to the west, while that same bullet would be drifted to the east when it moves from north to south ->



If a spinning aether would create a Coriolis force it would be more logical that this force is always working in the same direction as the spin of the eather, and the resulting Coriolis effect would always be in the same direction, no matter if you are on the northern or southern hemisphere, or firing to in north or south direction ->



.

[sandokhan]

Why formula's to calculate the Coriolis force in ballistics do not take the spin of the projectile in account, only its mass, velocity, latitude and hemisphere?

Because that is the classic formula for the Coriolis effect:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=xVXDjDVuhN4C&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=coriolis+effect+on+spinning+projectiles+vs+nonspinning+projectiles&source=bl&ots=BMHajnF2EG&sig=boUJ82BQYl8QTF41PAI7gTA97t8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJpNKq1uXdAhWL1ywKHdbcAskQ6AEwC3oECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=coriolis%20effect%20on%20spinning%20projectiles%20vs%20nonspinning%20projectiles&f=false

It simply registers the ether drift's effect on objects.

As for a careful investigation of the spinning rate in relation to the Coriolis force, this is a subject which has only recently begun to be researched:

http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/Articles/ABDOC108_GyroscopicAndCoriolis.pdf

Why the Coriolis effect on earth is not only observed on spinning projectiles, but similarly also non-spinning projectiles?

Each and every object on Earth is subject to the effect of the Coriolis force of the ether drift. As I said, a careful study of this effect on spinning projectiles vs non-spinning projectiles is in its infancy.

The spin of ballistic missiles is desired because the gyroscopic effect of that spin gives that projectile more stability and a more precise trajectory. But if that spin is "forming an aether vortex around the projectile" making it "sensitive for the Coriolis effect", then the opposite is true; the spin is responsible for pushing the projectile out of his initial trajectory.

No.

The DePalma effect (gyroscopic effect) is the source of the stability and precision of the trajectory. However, given the fact that both the velocities and the spinning rates only slightly alter the gravitational acceleration factor/figure, this means that this antigravitational effect is equal to the earth curvature ballistics calculations.

The influence of the Coriolis force on spinning projectiles vs. non-spinning projectiles is a subject which has yet to be addressed in full force by modern science.

But how does that explain that on the northern hemisphere a bullet traveling from south to north is drifted to the east, while that same bullet would be drifted to the west when it moves from north to south?
And how does this spinning aether explain that on the southern hemisphere this effect is opposite: a bullet traveling from south to north is drifted to the west, while that same bullet would be drifted to the east when it moves from north to south ->

Ether drift: a center and two poles. From each pole to the center, we have two longitudinal waves, travelling in double torsion fashion, one has a left-handed spin, the other one a right-handed spin.

Therefore, the Coriolis effect (and the Eotvos effect) of the ether drift are based on these complex trajectories of the longitudinal scalar waves.

You have your information wrong: the deflection is not east or west, but specifically to the right or left with reference to the shooting direction. It doesn’t matter in which direction you shoot; it is a function of latitude and average bullet speed.

Now, the ether drift is latitude dependent.

So, if you launch a projectile, due north (south to north, in the northern semiplane), its path will be deflected slightly to the east, because of the difference in the velocity of the ether drift (different latitudes); if you launch the same projectile due south (north to south, in the northern semiplane), the path will be deflected slightly to the right of its true path, since now you again have to deal with the different velocities (different latitudes) of the ether drift.


Now, you are going to have to explain this.

Only a light interferometer, which registers both the Coriolis effect and the rotational Sagnac effect, can answer the question: does the Earth rotate around its own axis, or does the Sun orbit above the flat surface of the Earth?

The formula for the Coriolis effect applied to light interferometers:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2069660#msg2069660

The formula for the Sagnac effect applied to light interferometers which are located away from the center of rotation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070082#msg2070082

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907

Why did Michelson make use of the Coriolis effect formula, while claiming all the while he was measuring the rotational Sagnac effect?

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect on the paths of the light beams; the Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect on the speeds of the light beams. Michelson recorded ONLY the physical effect, the Coriolis effect.

[Curiosity File]

Thank you Humble B and  sandokhon for you replies.
Very interesting info. Call me intrigued.
Fascinating to say the least.

The model charts don't address, on the RE, why the change from equator to north and from north to equator always deflect to the right?
From my understanding this can only be explained , and calculated, by curvature?
As the over all circumference decreases from the equator towards the poles. Thus the spin rate decreases in direct relation to the decrease in circumference.
The sideways drift speed changes from launch location to target location.

Next we can look at the fact shooting west to east or east to west there is no sideways drift of the neither launch site, projectile or target location.
There is on raise or drop of the target depending on which direction you shoot.
Shooting east the target drops so you hit high.
Shooting west the target raises so you hit low.
How does the FET and models explain this?
 

     

[sandokhan]

Next we can look at the fact shooting west to east or east to west there is no sideways drift of the neither launch site, projectile or target location.
There is on raise or drop of the target depending on which direction you shoot.
Shooting east the target drops so you hit high.
Shooting west the target raises so you hit low.
How does the FET and models explain this?

Yes, this is the Eotvos effect.

This is not the centrifugal RE force at all.

It has everything to do with the direction of both the laevorotatory scalar telluric longitudinal waves (antigravitational) and the dextrorotatory waves (gravitational).

Few scientists understand that the Eotvos effect cannot be explained by attractive gravitation.

The gravitational anomalies discovered by Roland Eotvos remain completely unexplained by modern science:

http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html
 

[Curiosity File]

Next we can look at the fact shooting west to east or east to west there is no sideways drift of the neither launch site, projectile or target location.
There is on raise or drop of the target depending on which direction you shoot.
Shooting east the target drops so you hit high.
Shooting west the target raises so you hit low.
How does the FET and models explain this?

Yes, this is the Eotvos effect.

This is not the centrifugal RE force at all.

It has everything to do with the direction of both the laevorotatory scalar telluric longitudinal waves (antigravitational) and the dextrorotatory waves (gravitational).

Few scientists understand that the Eotvos effect cannot be explained by attractive gravitation.

The gravitational anomalies discovered by Roland Eotvos remain completely unexplained by modern science:

http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html

Intriguing. It will take me a while to sift through this. Thanks again

[Curiosity File]

Simple calculations and real world affect is opposite to FET calculations.
We know exactly what happens in the real world when you fire a bullet to the east and west.
When you shoot to the east the target drops so you hit high.
On a FE model, with or without drift, the bullet ALWAYS hits low from gravity pull.
Likewise shoot to the west the bullet ALWAYS hits low.
If there were no drift the bullet would hit equally low shooting either direction.
With drift the bullet would hit lower shooting to the east because the target is moving away giving more time for the bullet to drop from gravity pull. This would be reversed shooting to the west.
Mathematical calculations match real world effect on a RE with rotation,(not drift), but is in error on a FE model with or without drift.
 

[Curiosity File]

Next we can look at the fact shooting west to east or east to west there is no sideways drift of the neither launch site, projectile or target location.
There is on raise or drop of the target depending on which direction you shoot.
Shooting east the target drops so you hit high.
Shooting west the target raises so you hit low.
How does the FET and models explain this?

Yes, this is the Eotvos effect.

This is not the centrifugal RE force at all.

It has everything to do with the direction of both the laevorotatory scalar telluric longitudinal waves (antigravitational) and the dextrorotatory waves (gravitational).

Few scientists understand that the Eotvos effect cannot be explained by attractive gravitation.

The gravitational anomalies discovered by Roland Eotvos remain completely unexplained by modern science:

http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html

First i'd like to say how do you expect me to understand these experiments when modern scientists cann't. I also seriously doubt you understand it either as it appears to have nothing to do with ballistics and Coriolis.

Furthermore it is just and isea that a fifth force exists, it's hypothetical, theoretical, never been proven and came about 3 or 4 hundred years ago.

Interest in it picked up again in 1980. But no articles wrote about any findings or if they even took up experiments again..   

Also no summery of the information and no conclusive evidence was ever found.

Even so the hypothesis of this fifth force shows so such little effect I don't see how it would effect ballistics.

Also it still would be a constant and would not explain how the trajectory changes as it does in the real world depending on location and direction in which a projectile is launched.

So my summery is a 400 year old hypothetical theory of some mysterious force is weak to use to disprove a physically and mathematically proven fact.
 

 
   

[Curiosity File]

I'd also like to point out that this 5th force, if it exists, is so weak that they were conducting extremely elaborate experiments that took long periods of time to get any results.
In comparison the force of gravity is so strong you can watch stuff fall to the earth while it has limited effect on seeding bullets.
So how do we expect such a weak force as the "EOTVOS" effect influence something as powerful a bullet?

[sandokhan]

The gravitational anomaly discovered by Roland Eotvos is not the same as the Eotvos effect (vertical displacement of the projectile), yet they are caused by the same phenomenon.

E.T. Whittaker proved the existence of the longitudinal waves:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

In comparison the force of gravity is so strong you can watch stuff fall to the earth while it has limited effect on seeding bullets.

Here is a force which is stronger than the force of gravity: the Biefeld-Brown antigravitational effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2031282#msg2031282

Or the Allais antigravitational effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

Once that "fifth force" is activated (a very strong electrical field, sound, double torsion) it becomes much stronger than the force of terrestrial gravity.


"Well gentlemen, we will undertake this, although my conviction is strong that we shall prove only that the earth rotates on its axis, a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already."

A. Michelson

This is the formula published by Michelson in 1904 and 1925:



However, this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA for circuital light beams.

Here it is:

Δt = 4AΩsinΦ/c^2 (where Φ is the latitude)

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

The same formula was derived by Dr. Ludwik Silberstein in 1921:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.

It is a physical effect, it deflects the path of the light beams.

By constrast, the rotational Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, it modifies the speed of the light beams.

Michelson and Gale ONLY recorded the Coriolis effect of the ether drift upon the light beams; no rotational Sagnac effect was detected.

Here is the derivation of the rotational Sagnac effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070082#msg2070082

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907

The Sagnac effect formula is proportional to the radius of the Earth, while the Coriolis effect is proportional to the area of the interferometer and thus thousands of times smaller in magnitude than the Sagnac effect.

[Curiosity File]

The gravitational anomaly discovered by Roland Eotvos is not the same as the Eotvos effect (vertical displacement of the projectile), yet they are caused by the same phenomenon.

E.T. Whittaker proved the existence of the longitudinal waves:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

In comparison the force of gravity is so strong you can watch stuff fall to the earth while it has limited effect on seeding bullets.

Here is a force which is stronger than the force of gravity: the Biefeld-Brown antigravitational effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2031282#msg2031282

Or the Allais antigravitational effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

Once that "fifth force" is activated (a very strong electrical field, sound, double torsion) it becomes much stronger than the force of terrestrial gravity.


"Well gentlemen, we will undertake this, although my conviction is strong that we shall prove only that the earth rotates on its axis, a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already."

A. Michelson

This is the formula published by Michelson in 1904 and 1925:



However, this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA for circuital light beams.

Here it is:

Δt = 4AΩsinΦ/c^2 (where Φ is the latitude)

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

The same formula was derived by Dr. Ludwik Silberstein in 1921:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.

It is a physical effect, it deflects the path of the light beams.

By constrast, the rotational Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, it modifies the speed of the light beams.

Michelson and Gale ONLY recorded the Coriolis effect of the ether drift upon the light beams; no rotational Sagnac effect was detected.

Here is the derivation of the rotational Sagnac effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070082#msg2070082

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907

The Sagnac effect formula is proportional to the radius of the Earth, while the Coriolis effect is proportional to the area of the interferometer and thus thousands of times smaller in magnitude than the Sagnac effect.

All this is really simple to understand, if they exists.
One, or more of these effects have to be activated? I suppose that's possible.

 However, these forces all appear to be constant. They would act the same, have the same observable effect no matter location and direction of projectile. The mathematical calculations are, or would be, a constant on a FE with or without ether drift.

This is not what's observable in the real world.

The trajectory of projectile drift changes exponentially as do the mathematical calculations that predict their path and target location on a RE with spin depending on location and direction.

Add together the reality that we've physically circumnavigated the globe, that with all the navigational calculations it takes to do so, we've seen with our own eyes the Coriolis effect, calculated this effect with math, the conclusion is irrefutable.

You seem to quote a lot of stuff that has little or nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Here's an example.

 "Biefeld-Brown antigravitational effect."

This from another forum

"I'm pretty sure this is just ionising air (stripping off some of the electrons from the N2, for example), and driving them through the electrical field between the strips of Aluminum foil; your TV does a similar thing when it take a cathode-ray (a beam of electrons) and uses electrical and magnetic fields to bend the beam in such a way to draw pictures on your screen...

The easy way to prove that it is just atmospheric ionisation, and not "anti-gravity", is to put one of these things in a vacuum chamber; if there is "anti-gravity", it should produce lift, otherwise it will just sit there...

That's not to say something like this is completely unfeasiable; Dr. Leik Myrabo has done some (real engineering) work on an air ionisation drive with the power supplied by ground-based lasers. I don't know that it would work (or be even useful), but it is theoretically possible...

http://www.eng.rpi.edu/mane/lightcraft/Curriculum/TAVD/intro/images/ship2-big.jpg">
 


 

[Curiosity File]

Sandokhan
Here's some of the jargon you try to use as an example of something that effects ballistics.
As you can see it take a specific chemical composition to get this effect, which still is only theoretical. "aluminum plate" being one. Not used in artillery shells or bullets that I'm aware of. Please don't post a bunch of jargon about aluminum alloy composite casings because that's not part of the projectiles.

Again, even if this effect exists and had any impact on ballistics it would be a constant no matter which direction of projectile and locations involved as explained before.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ekpsim/index.htm
 

 

[sandokhan]

"I'm pretty sure this is just ionising air (stripping off some of the electrons from the N2, for example), and driving them through the electrical field between the strips of Aluminum foil; your TV does a similar thing when it take a cathode-ray (a beam of electrons) and uses electrical and magnetic fields to bend the beam in such a way to draw pictures on your screen...

The easy way to prove that it is just atmospheric ionisation, and not "anti-gravity", is to put one of these things in a vacuum chamber; if there is "anti-gravity", it should produce lift, otherwise it will just sit there..."

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

But I have.





Biefeld-Brown Effect

Dr. Paul Biefeld used to do Einstein's homework while they were studying at the  Polytechnic University in Zurich in 1900.

Dr. Paul Biefeld was a classmate of A. Einstein.

 “Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed."

Experimental proof that the vacuum consists of ether.



(vacuum test performed by Gravitec, increasing the voltage from 15kv to 18 kv, clear movement/thrust of the capacitor can be seen; near the end the power is switched off, and then turned on again, and we can the visible thrust of the capacitor for a second time)

The first video supplied by Gravitec in 2003:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363 (vacuum test #1, Biefeld-Brown effect part I, contains the experiments performed by T. Brown in oil)



One of the best videos which exemplifies the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html


http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.


Dr. Takaaki Musha
Advanced Space Propulsion Investigation Committee (ASPIC)
Research Engineer on Naval Systems, Technical Research & Development Institute
Honda R&D Institute, Biefeld-Brown effect experiments

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

Explanation of dynamical Biefeld-Brown Effect from the standpoint of ZPF field

In 1956, T.T. Brown presented a discovery known as the Biefeld-Bown effect (abbreviated B-B effect) that a sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibited unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

From the 1st of February until the 1st of March in 1996, the research group of the HONDA R&D Institute conducted experiments to verify the B-B effect with an improved experimental device which rejected the influence of corona discharges and electric wind around the capacitor by setting the capacitor in the insulator oil contained within a metallic vessel . . . The experimental results measured by the Honda research group are shown . . .

. . . The theoretical analysis result suggests that the impulsive electric field applied to the dielectric material may produce a sufficient artificial gravity to attain velocities comparable to chemical rockets.


https://web.archive.org/web/20120710005059/http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/Theoretical_Explanation_of_the_Biefield-Brown_Effect.pdf

Experiments carried out at the HONDA R&D Institute confirm that the Biefeld-Brown effect is real.

Direct experimental proof that the ether propagates through vacuum, causing the antigravitational Biefeld-Brown effect.

No gas left in the experiments: they were performed in vacuum.

Calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).

Also the experiments carried out at the Honda R&D eliminated the possibility of ionic winds.

[Curiosity File]

sandokhan
I go to your links, they take me to your web pages. I briefly study the information.
I click on more links, they take me to more stuff YOU post. I click on other links that finally takes me to places where maybe the original information comes from?
You use this info, take it to your post and try to apply it to FET. Successfully, maybe in some cases.

However sticking to the subject at hand, I don't see any relation this information of laser tech and bending of light etc. has anything to do with or effects the trajectory of a solid object.
Also I'll repeat the fact that all of that shows a constant effect which would not change the direction of a a projectile as seen with change of location and direction with real world effect.     
 

[Curiosity File]

What does "ionic wind" have to with the subject at hand?