Enterprise Mission
Enterprise Mission To Enterprise Mission Home Page
 
AAG


 

 

Von Braun’s 50-Year-Old Secret:

The US Explorer I Discovery that Could Have Saved

the World ….

 

Part II

 

By Richard C. Hoagland
© 2008 The Enterprise Mission

 

 

In Part I, we described surprising -- and apparently totally unrecognized, until now -- pivotal new details around the seminal events which quietly unfolded the night of January 31, 1958 -- when the United States finally carried out its first successful launch of an artificial Earth satellite, Explorer I.

 

 

How, Wernher von Braun -- "Operation Paperclip" chief German rocket engineer, and head of the US Army effort that actually launched Explorer I (using the Jupiter-C rocket that von Braun and his German team had specifically designed) -- was, at first, intensely disappointed ... then, obviously surprised and overjoyed ... and finally, completely baffled ....

By the totally unexpected orbital performance of "his" first US satellite.

For -- mysteriously -- Explorer I had reached an orbit of the Earth that night fully one third higher than the one (green line - below) originally planned!

We also noted in Part I of this report the immediate -- and still continuing -- national security classification of these amazing scientific findings, which have both prevented open civilian research into the far-reaching implications of Explorer I's astonishing "anti-gravity" behavior for these past fifty years ... as well as any application of those findings to desperately-needed energy or transportation problems here on Earth.

Yet, despite this "security lid," we were able to document von Braun's surprising, clandestine, years-long personal search -- following Explorer I -- for "answers" to these inexplicable celestial-mechanics questions ... which eventually set him on a remarkable one-man quest for "an entire alternative physics" -- which could explain America's first satellite achieving an orbit (yellow line - below) for which von Braun's own rocket was literally incapable of reaching ... on its own.

 

 

But, even more remarkable ... Explorer I was not alone in this achievement!

Review of the publicly-available data revealed the equally-unexpected "over performance" of two additional Explorer satellites in von Braun's early Army program, as well as similar "mysteriously enlarged orbits" of all three successful US Navy Vanguard satellites ... to the point where the latter have now become the oldest man-made artifacts still orbiting the Earth!

And yet, as also noted in our first section -- even after fifty years -- no one seems to have noticed or asked any in-depth questions about this astonishing sequence of events: the repeated, gross violations of both "Newton's Laws" and "Einstein's Relativity" ... in the launching of America's first satellites!

To say nothing of the simultaneous appearance of enormous quantities of literal "free energy" ... in each of their much larger orbits--

All ... apparently from nowhere!

 

* * *

 

In this -- Part 2 of our continuing investigation into von Braun's amazing "secret" -- we will now lay out, based on our own ~ 20 years of "hyperdimensional research and experimentation," just how we "figured it out"; how we have been able to "back engineer" what von Braun (and JPL ...) themselves eventually had to have deciphered about this startling phenomenon, and what it could mean even beyond "a fundamental revolution in celestial mechanics ...."

Explorer I's radically "non-Newtonian" orbital behavior (and that of the other US satellites' ...) must rank as THE major scientific and political discovery of the early space program ... if not the last fifty years of solar system exploration!

Regardless of the public secrecy and security classifications that high-level governmental policy makers immediately placed around this night, the question which MUST be asked now is: "were von Braun (and his associates at JPL) eventually able to turn this revolutionary scientific discovery--

Into a workable technology?

A technology which ultimately could control even--

Gravity itself?!

And if so, has this overwhelmingly important technical and political development also been officially kept secret, literally for decades ... from both the American taxpayer ... and the world?

As noted earlier, our own ~ 25 years of research may have given us a technical advantage that von Braun (at least, initially ...) did not possess: a working scientific theory (the Hyperdimensional Model) -- which, from the beginning, has predicted distinct "non-Newtonian" spacecraft motions and behavior ....

There is, however, another school of thought vis a vis "what did von Braun (and other Operation Paperclip Germans) really know about Explorer I's 'non-Newtonian dynamics' ..?" -- an historical perspective extensively documented and discussed in the works of our friend and colleague, Dr. Joseph Farrell:

 

 

In this discussion, there was the definite possibility that von Braun (after all, once a Major in Himmler's "SS" ...), in fact, was privy (along with other key members of his own "Operation Paperclip" imported German team ...) to a major, ultra-secret, Nazi black-ops SS research and development program -- termed "the Nazi Bell Experiment" (above and below); an extraordinary experiment which (according to officially declassified "intel" documents from Eastern Europe, made available after the reunification of Germany ...) "manifested several, extremely anomalous phenomenon .... "

Including--

Anti-gravity!

Which would have been, of course, directly relevant to Von Braun's own ability to instantly recognize the similar "non-Newtonian behavior" of Explorer I!

 

 

After looking at this really hard, I happen not to share this point of view ... and neither, by the way, does Dr. Farrell.

If von Braun had been knowledgeable about prior "... Nazi inertia and gravity-control experiments" ala "the Bell," why did he then personally go "in hot persuit" of an alternative physics theory to explain "the inexplicable" around Explorer I?; in other words, why was he so obviously surprised ...!?

Why, as part of his major effort to understand the startling phenomenon that accompanied Explorer I's launch into orbit, did he subsequently write to all those "alternative physicists" around the world, seeking a new theoretical "non-Newtonian solution" to "the Problem?"

Why not simply, quietly, consult with more knowledgable members of his own German team ... in terms of details of the Bell Experiment he might not have personally known?

In fact, von Braun's well-documented, "inquisitive behavior" -- after the "shock" of Explorer I -- compellingly argues for a distinct lack of knowledge of the "Nazi Bell" on his part ... and certainly, a total ignorance of the radical, alternative physics that the Bell manifested to those directly interacting with its technology ... to the point of actually killing some of the scientists and technicians involved during the SS-run experiments!

However, there is one other possibility ....

That von Braun might have heard "just enough" about the Bell (from "someone" that he trusted ...) to impel him -- after his Explorer I experience -- to seek further information ... to find independent, contemporary confirmation of the existence of such a "radical, alternative physics" ... on his own.

Whatever the facts around his "curious interest" in such physics (and we may never know, for sure ...), unlike von Braun, we at Enterprise, as previously noted, had the distinct advantage of a remarkable, redundant, beautifully convergent series of non-classified "anomalous gravity and inertia experiments" to start out with -- when we began seriously to examine "the Explorer problem."

In addition, also unlike von Braun (if you totally discount the "he knew about the Bell" scenario ...), we had the distinct advantage of a set of precise theoretical predictions from our "Hyperdimensional Model" to go on ....

All of which formed an extremely solid foundation from which Enterprise could attempt to "back engineer" the ultimate process von Braun and JPL must have used in their years-long, documentable efforts to "figure out the Problem."

 

* * *

 

It is at this point that we must introduce another remarkable player in this "drama" -- the late "alternative physicist," Dr. Bruce DePalma (below).

 

 

DePalma (whose brother is the well-known Hollywood director, Brian DePalma) started his career by graduating from MIT the very year von Braun put Explorer I in orbit -- 1958. In graduate school, he pursued electrical engineering -- both at MIT and Harvard.

After grad school, DePalma went to work for some of the Nation's most prestigeous scientists and scientific institutions -- serving as Lecturer at MIT under Herold Edgerton; and Head of Photographic R&D for Dr. Edwin Land -- at the famed Polaroid Corporation.

But after almost 20 years of watching the American Science Establishment "up close" -- as it repeatedly ignored new experimental evidence in favor of traditional theoretical "explanations" -- DePalma one day got fed up, and decided to resign ... to create his own independent research organization -- which he called "The Simularity Institute."

Based in part on his extensive lab experience with rotating electrical equipment (motors, generators, etc.), DePalma initially became fascinated by the electrical and inertial properties of "magnetized gyroscopes ...."; after leaving MIT and extending this to gyroscope dynamics in general, he investigated a wide-ranging series of "systems in rotation" ....

Which is how our totally independent research paths eventually crossed.

In 1989, as Erol Torun and I were just beginning to grapple with some of the higher-level implications of our brand-new "Hyperdimensional (HD) Physics Model," paraphrasing the old joke about "the most important things to remember about business real estate ..." I paraphrased a (somewhat flip ...) response to a similar question about our work--

 

"What are the three most important things to remember about 'Hyperdimensional Physics?'; rotation ... rotation ... rotation ...."

 

Later, when I went looking for a serious "alternative physicist" (meaning, someone who was open to the "unexpected" ...) to run some of our HD ideas past, a major figure in the "free energy" community, Don Reed, strongly recommended that I talk to "Bruce DePalma."

It was probably one of the most important recommendations I've ever received ....

Because--

As noted above, DePalma -- since the 1970's -- had been carrying out perhaps the most exhaustive laboratory studies of "bodies in rotation" -- including MASSIVE objects (~ 30 pounds ...), spinning at very high velocities (~ 7600 revolutions per minute ...) -- that I had ever seen (below); he had, thereby, accumulated an extensive experimental database on a subject not normally dealt with in mainstream physics or mechanics:

Rotation.

 

 

Matching our theoretical predictions of "the HD Model" against Bruce's extensive experimental lab results in rotation, became one of the true joys of our initial professional collaboration.

For instance, early on Bruce introduced me to the simplest -- yet, probably, the most profound -- of all his many rotational experiments. He just called it (fittingly ...) "the spinning ball."

Conceptually, the experiment could not have been much cheaper, or easier to carry out:

Two 1-inch steel balls (like those found in every pinball machine in America ...) were positioned at the business end of an ordinary power drill; one ball was in a cup attached to the drill's motor shaft, so it spun -- at a very high rate of speed; the other ball was in an identical cup, attached by a bracket to the stationary drill casing, adjusted so that it was level with the first ball.

The experiment consisted of positioning the drill vertically, cups "up," and pressing the drill switch on the motor.

The drill motor (and its associated cup, containing one of the steel balls) rapidly spun up to approximately 27,000 RPM. The cup attached to the side of the drill (with the second steel ball inside it ...) was not rotating ....

When the drill motor had attained its maximum speed, DePalma (or, more often, Ed Delvers, his assistant ...) would shove the drill into the air with a fast, upward motion -- suddenly stopping the drill it in mid-flight. This would, of course, cause both 1-inch pinballs to fly out of their retaining cups in the same upward direction -- the "spinning ball" (hence the name ...) and the non-spinning ball, right beside it.

DePalma, from his years spent working with Dr. Herald Edgerton at MIT -- the famed inventor of "stroboscopic photography" -- was an expert in such stop-motion photography as well. By positioning Delvers against a gridded black background, in a darkened laboratory (below), and then illluminating the two upward-flying steel balls with a powerful strobe light, DePalma was able to take time-exposure photographs with the camera's shutter open, the "pinballs" only illuminated (at 60 times per second) by the strobe's periodic flash ....

The result was a striking "stroboscopic, time-lapse photograph" of the parabolic arc of both steel balls -- flying upward and then downward under Earth's gravitational acceleration (below).

 

 

Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!

An experimental result in direct violation of everything physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!

The above ~ 34-year-old image is a recent scan of one of the original "spinning ball photographs" from DePalma's own ~30-year-old files, contrast-adjusted in PhotoShop (with text and grid added), to bring out the data in the faded original. Nothing else has been added or altered.

What this photograph reveals is truly remarkable ... for, in direct violation of both Newton and Einstein, it SHOUTS that "inertial mass" and "gravitational mass" are NOT equivalent--

Thus violating the foundation of all modern physics in one elegantly simple experiment -- which anyone can safely repeat ... even at home!!

 

* * *

 

When I first saw the orbit of Explorer I (below, right - outer blue line) -- compared to the intended orbit (below, right - inner red line) -- my thoughts instantly flashed to the DePalma's remarkable (and highly controversial) "spinning ball experiment" (below - left)--

 

 

The physics of each was identical -- a "mass" thrust vertically against the pull of Earth's gravity by an "outside" force; in Depalma's case, literally the hand of the experimeter -- throwing the two pinballs simultaneously into the air at the same speed; in the Explorer I example, von Braun's Jupiter-C rocket supplying the "outside force" -- accelerating the satellite into a trajectory fast enough and high enough to eventually "fall around the Earth" without hitting it ... the quintessential definition of a satellite orbit.

Was it possible that von Braun had -- inadvertantly --somehow duplicated some aspect of Depalma's elegantly simple "spinning ball experiment" that night in January, 1958 ... some ~ 20 years before DePalma would, in fact, carry it out?!

Was THAT why Explorer I had been boosted so much higher than originally planned that night ...?

Could it be as simple as ... that!?

Of course, this didn't explain anything about why the DePalma Spinning Ball Experiment works the way it does ... the underlying physics that (somehow!) changes a spinning object's inertia against "an outside force," compared to one that's NOT spinning ....

But, it was a start!

Now, as I've often noted "science is nothing ... if it's not prediction."

For this comparison between Explorer I and DePalma's elegent experiment to physically hold true, for it to be real science -- there HAD TO BE some aspect of von Braun's Jupiter-C rocket that was spinning ... during and after launch, as Explorer I was injected into orbit.

Here is George Ludwig's (Van Allen's assistent on the Explorer I electronics) official description of von Braun's modifications of the "Jupiter-C" -- before the effort to launch Explorer I:

 

" ... as the building of the Army’s Redstone rocket was nearing completion, the ABMA group undertook the development of the Jupiter rocket, a much longer-range Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile. As a part of that program, in order to test nosecones for reentry through the atmosphere, they developed a special test vehicle to achieve the necessary high velocity. Since it was part of the Jupiter program, it was called the Jupiter C (Jupiter Composite). It consisted of a Redstone first stage, topped by clusters of small solid propellant rockets forming an additional two stages. It was consciously designed from the beginning so that an additional stage could be added in place of the test nosecone to make the vehicle orbit-capable.

"... sixty miles up, 156 seconds after takeoff, the first stage [would burn] itself out. The three upper stages with the satellite payload [would then separate] from the booster and zoom upward, spinning in their tub-shaped assembly in free-coasting, unpropelled flight, toward the apex ... at which instant the remaining three rocket stages had to be fired.

"... a radio signal [would then be sent] to the speeding missile to fire the second stage. Off [would go] the first cluster of scaled Sergeants, which quickly [would boost] the speed [of the entire, still spinning "tub"] by thousands of miles per hour. Seconds later, the next cluster of rockets [would ignite], pushing the final-stage rocket, with its satellite, ever closer to that critical orbital velocity. Then the single rocket in the final stage [would be triggered]. Its thrust [would drive] the 18.13-pound payload over the 18,000 mile per hour mark [emphasis added] ...."

 

BINGO!!

And here (below), is a modified NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center cut-away of the basic solid-fueled upper stages of the Jupiter-C IRBM configuration. The diagram shows how the third stage fit neatly inside the second stage (like a set of nested decanter glasses ...), and the entire upper-stage configuration was then rapidly ROTATED in flight ... as each subsequent stage separated and ignited.

 

 

Von Braun and JPL (which designed this rotating, solid-propellant upper stage configuration ...), as Ludwig wrote, simply modified their existing IRBM version a bit more, adding a fourth solid-rocket upper stage (attached directly to Explorer I) -- which then became von Braun's "Jupiter-C satellite launcher."

There -- plain as day! -- was the simple fact these upper stages (called collectively "the tub") were all deliberately set spinning just before launch ... to provide (according to the JPL engineers ...) "gyroscopic stability against uneven burn of the Sergeant solid rockets in each stage, during their subsequent ignition phases."

The added color inset (above - left) is a frame from a 1958 US Army PR film -- showing a top-down view of a one-third scale model of a "nuclear reentry vehicle" for a forthcoming IRBM test, carefully mounted on "the tub"; with the cover not yet in place, you can also see clearly the placement of the 11 second-stage JPL "Sergeant" rockets, mounted in their circular (waiting to be spun up ... ) configuration.

The dummy warhead is the purplish "cone" on top of the (hidden) third stage.

As Ludwig noted, this one-third scale warhead model was simply replaced in the "satellite Jupiter-C configuration," by that additional fourth stage solid-fuel rocket -- atop which was literally bolted the Explorer I satellite itself (below).

 

 

Here (below), JPL engineers work on a full-size mock-up of this "spinning tub" assembly, with a separate mock-up of the fourth stage and Explorer I on top -- the full "satellite version" of the Jupiter-C.

 

 

And here (below), is the three-stage "rotating tub's" operational configuration -- complete with the real Explorer I -- all mounted atop the conical "instrument section" and (below that), the liquid-fuel main stage of the Jupiter-C booster itself.

The vertical black stripe painted on the side of the "tub" is to allow blockhouse engineers to optically monitor the rate of spin of the three nested upper stages on the pad, as they were coming "up to speed" (between 450 and 750 rpm ...) just before launch.

 

 

So, precisely as predicted by the HD model (and DePalma!) -- a key section of von Braun's rocket, in fact, did rotate that night ... as it placed Explorer I into space!

Mystery of "the unexplained higher orbit" ... finally ... solved.

Well ... not quite, of course.

For, this "confirmation" only deepened the real mystery:

Why does "spinning" a steel pinball, or ... rotating a one-ton, high-tech "tub" -- containing 15 solid rockets -- allow both to climb SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER against gravity ... than if they were NOT spinning!?

One of the first reactions I had to this fascinating confirmation -- that portions of von Braun's rocket HAD to spin, inevitably (from DePalma's experiment ...) resulting in the higher orbit for Explorer I -- was a feeling of intense gratification for Bruce; for, this simple engineering detail proved that Bruce DePalma has been absolutely right all along ... for over 34 years ... in insisting that "spinning a mass" also creates "some kind of anti-gravitational, anti-intertial field ..." which allows the object to fly higher against gravity than if it was NOT spinning!

Von Braun -- decades before Bruce DePalma ever conceived of his elegant little "spinning ball experiment" -- had already PROVED Depalma right ... with easily the most expensive "spinning ball" demonstration one could possibly imagine (Explorer I cost the American taxpayer approximately 20 million dollars, in 1958; today, allowing for inflation, that would be something like "half a billion ... ").

Further, it was now obvious that this is why von Braun also missed the Moon ... by those "pesky ~37,000 miles" with Pioneer 4.

Again he was using, in his Juno-2 "moonrocket" (a further modification of the Jupiter-C ...), EXACTLY the same "spinning tub" arrangement for the four solid-rocket upper stages that he'd used in the previous Earth-orbiting Explorer launches; and (from what we now know ...), the "DePalma Effect" struck again ... neatly over-accelerating the Pioneer 4 spacecraft to a slightly higher velocity than JPL had calculated using only standard "Newtonian dynamics" ... thus, causing the spacecraft to arrive at the Moon's orbit slightly sooner than it should have ... passing ahead of the Moon itself (which, of course, hadn't reached the "rendezvous point" yet ...) by those disappointing "37,000 miles (below) ...."

 

 

It all fit -- beautifully.

Of course, the reason why simply "spinning an object" should so dramatically change its "Newtonian dynamics" -- against all current mainstream theories (including, "sacred" Relativity ...) -- was still as profound a mystery as ever ....

 

* * *

 

It is hard to overstate both the scientific and political significance of von Braun's initial Explorer I discovery (swiftly confirmed, as we have documented, by Explorers III and IV, and all three Vanguard launches!) -- as well as all their confirmed connections now to DePalma's totally independent, rotating laboratory experiments.

Oh, did I forget to mention--

The US Navy Vanguard three-stage rocket also utilized a solid-propellant in its third stage ... so, it also had to be spun during the burn ... for "stabilization" -- at ~100 rpm (below)!

 

 

And, of course, then there was Allais ....

ALL these independent, dynamical results revealed "huge, gaping holes ..." in conventional "Newtonian mechanics" ... to say nothing of what they did to "General Relativity!" Yet, mainstream science -- and the mainstream science press, including those covering the space progream for the last 50 years -- blithely went on ... as if nothing was amiss!

DePalma himself, trained as a mainstream physicist for decades at two of the premier universities on the planet -- MIT and Harvard! -- wrestled with the extraordinary implications of his "spinning ball experiment" (first carried out in 1972 ...) for years -- before finally publishing some tentative, but far-reaching conclusions ....

 

"... the beginning of this author's work with rotating objects began with moment of inertia measurements of constrained gyroscopes undergoing forced precession. The increased moments of inertia discovered for precessional motion were translated into a series of measurements on pendula with rotating bobs. Although the discoveries of the inertial effects associated with precession and pendulum oscillations of rotating bob weights were highly suggestive, this author greatly resisted [for several years] attempts to force him to drop a rotating object for two reasons.

"Firstly, he had no reason to be able to predict the motion of a freely falling object on the basis of the inertial alterations he had measured which had concerned themselves with constrained situations of rotating objects. Second, there was no reason to expect inertial alterations [because of Einstein's inviolate "Principal of Equivalence"] to affect the rate of fall of a released object and there was no available theory which could in any way be applied to the situation or a falling rotating object in a gravitational field. This is a situation known in religious terms as a "leap into the dark."

"Since the author and his assistants are experts in the application of stroboscopic lighting techniques to the study of high speed motions, the first experimental cut at the situation was to photograph the trajectories of a steel ball bearing rotating at a high speed together with an identical [non-rotating] control object moving at a similar initial velocity. The result of the experiment was so startling and anomalous as to have taken me five years to understand.

"... Basically, the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control, presents a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood ... on the basis of radically new concepts in physics [distinct from the existing "Laws of Thermodynamics" ... "Newton's Laws" ... or "Special and General Relativity"] ...

"We know when we can alter the properties of mechanical objects, i.e. change their inertia, we have contravened the conservation of energy, because we have associated the properties of an object with the space which contains the object. The space which contains the object also contains energy and we can go at the project in two ways: we can attempt to extract the energy without worrying where it came from, or we can attempt to understand physics, ourselves, and the Universe by a new formulation of reality.

"... The behavior of rotating objects is explained [after much thought] simply on the addition of free energy to whatever motion the rotating object is [already] making. [Thus] the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control.

"... In terms of the dropping of the spinning ball, the understanding of the experiment involves the results of many other experiments as well as the resolution of a mind picture of the Universe which is our best approximation to understanding at the present time. What makes it difficult for other experimenters to understand the experiment is that it is not simply the results which are important. Without a theoretical foundation of understanding to make the experiment comprehensible -- to fit the results into a context of rational understanding and harmony with the facts of other experiments -- the data become trivial and worthless, and, worst of all, subject to misinterpretation.

"The [technological] availability of free energy from as simple an experiment as colliding a rotating object with a non-rotating one opens up the development of other machines for energy extraction and propulsion which may be more convenient to handle than the extraction of energy from the collision of a rotating object with a non-rotating one [emphasis added] ...."

 

 

"... The behavior of rotating objects is explained simply on the addition of free energy to whatever motion the rotating object is [already] making. [Thus] the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control [emphasis added] ...."

-- "Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment"
Bruce DePalma

Simularity Institute, May 3, 1977

 

This summation of DePalma's thoughts on the "spinning ball experiment" is, in my opinion, a significant summation of the results of all of his decades of ground-breaking experiments in "rotation."

It is also the key to understanding exactly what von Braun -- independently, serendipitously -- actually discovered with Explorer I ... decades earlier ... and then (for whatever reason) decided to keep secret to the day he died ....

For, after literally years of pondering its meaning -- in concert with all the other "rotation and inertia experiments" he had carried out -- DePalma, 25 years after Explorer (and knowing nothing of its anomalies or its profound significance to his own work ...), realized that "the spinning ball" was NOT (directly, anyway ...) about "anti-gravity" at all. That, instead, it represented a unique window into a far deeper reality ... re the very "energy structure" of space and time itself ... and the extraordinary possibilities of extracting that unlimited, "free energy" via a variety of "appropriate" technologies.

"Energy Crisis -- Solved!" anyone ...?

One of our unfinished, on-going discussions (abruptly cut short by Bruce's tragic and untimely death, in 1997 ...) was a resolution of exactly where this "free space energy" was coming from; in the "HD Model," it is not really coming from "3-Space" at all -- but literally from "a higher dimensional reality," made available in this dimension (as a propagating torsion field distortion -- see Chapter 2 in Dark Mission ...) via "physical rotation of mass ..."

The act of mere "rotation" -- in the HD Model -- literally "opens a type of 'gate,' or 'geometric doorway ...'" between other dimensions ....

Intriguingly enough, our decades-old debates also now provided another (actually, "collateral"...) explanation for Explorer I's "orbital overperformance" ....

 

* * *

 

DePalma proposed, as a result of his wide-ranging rotational experiments, that "rotating masses" in general set up some kind of hitherto unrecognized "inertial field" in their vicinity (the more widely-used term for this field now, because of how it's accessed, is a "torsion field" -- because "torsion" means literally "rotation").

DePalma's exhaustive measurements (like the famous "Accutron Experiment" - below) eventually revealed that this "torsion field" was "anisotropic," i.e. it was NOT spherical (like a gravitational or electromagnetic "bubble," decreasing sharply in intensity with distance ...) -- but seemed to have radically different effects, and different geometric properties, depending on the geometric relationship and orientation of the detecting sensor to the axial spin of the object being measured; this new "spin field" (another term now in use ...) seemed to be, as scientists term it, polarized ....

 

 

What this means is simple.

If measured along the rotational axis (as seen in the diagram - above) ... this "torsion field" from the resulting rotation seemed to increase the inertia of other moving objects (such as the tuning fork inside the Accutron); but, if the watch was rotated 90 degrees (below) -- into the plane of the masses rotation -- the Accutron's tuning fork inertia abruptly decreased ...!

 

 

Again, these differences -- measured "within the spin field" -- were NOT slight ... or ambiguous.

A 1000-second measurement period (~17 minutes ...) produced almost a full second (0.9 sec) lag in the Accutron's previous time setting; the normal drift rate of the watch -- as measured by DePalma before and after each experimental "run" -- was about 0.25 second per a four hour period .... The effect of a nearby, rotationally generated "inertial field" on the Accutron's vibrating tuning fork -- a field created solely by spinning a ~30-lb aluminum/steel disc, at almost 8000 rpm -- was definitely NOT "buried in the noise!"

As can also be seen in the above diagram, because the research of DePalma's "Simularity Institute" was not funded by "lavish government grants or major corporate donations ...", sometime the measurement technologies were ingenuously "improvised."

Unable to afford expensive "electronic frequency counters" to measure the actual vibrations of the Accutron tuning fork, DePalma did the next best thing with what he had; he physically attached the Accutron watch to the face of an electrically-driven "Westclock" (fed by 60 cycle, "AC line current" from the wall). He then measured the "time drift" of the Accutron, compared to the clock, by physically synchronizing the two sweep second hands -- the Accutron's and the Westclock's -- and then measuring how far apart their angular positions were when a ~1000-second "rotor run" was finished!

Decades later, in 2004, I decided that Bruce's elegant Accutron-based "inertial field detector" -- if upgraded with a laptop and a "computerized, crystal frequency calibration system" (easily affordable now ...) -- would be the perfect sensor for a variety of HD "torsion field" experiments and measurements for Enterprise.

Combining two previous experiments -- DePalma's Accutron detection of the "spin field" around a massive, spinning laboratory disc, and Maurice Allais' detection (with a paraconical pendulum) of equally "anomalous pendulum effects during the 1954 solar eclipse" (see Part I) -- I decided to attempt detection of potential "torsion/HD effects" (if any!) generated from the impending Earth-Venus-Sun alignment during the rare "Venus Transit" -- to take place on June 8, 2004 (below).

This is an event, which happens only in "pairs" (separated by 8 years every 122 years ..!) -- where Venus comes directly between the Earth and Sun ... essentially, a tiny, tiny "partial solar eclipse" -- caused by the shadowed side of a planet that's almost the twin of Earth moving inbetween these two other celestial bodies ....

 

 

A friend and colleage, Bill Alek -- an electrical engineer and computer systems expert, as well as an Enterprise Associate -- professionally assembled the required equipment for our "Venus Transit Experiment" (see schematic - below). He even included ~150 feet of electrically shielded cable, to isolate the Accutron from the quartz-crystal time standard (and the laptop) we were using to gauge (to millions of times DePalma's own measurement precision!) the Accutron's inertially-induced, potential tuning fork vibration changes ... during the actual Transit.

 

 

Bill's system (as you'll see ...) worked perfectly.

We decided to choose as our Transit location, southeast Florida's famed "Coral Castle" (an entire story in itself!). We chose the Castle, in part, because toward the very end of this particular Transit, as Venus was about to leave the disc of the Sun ... the Sun itself would rise (for us ...) over the Atlantic Ocean horizon!

And physical sunrise -- according to our previous hyperdimensional calculations -- was a particularly propitious time to be measuring the possible "torsion alignment effects" of the Sun ... "rising over the eastern horizon of a spinning Earth."

To make a LONG story shorter ... the torsion/HD effects of Venus -- as it was physically departing the western edge of the Sun (as seen in the Florida sky at dawn ...) -- were simply astonishing (below)!

 

 

Based on the major frequency "jump" of the Accutron tuning fork occuring EXACTLY at the moment of 3rd Contact (when Venus' edge just "kissed" the Sun's western limb - above) -- from ~360 hertz (cycles per second) to 364.5 hertz -- the extrapolated daily acceleration of the Accutron at that rate was about twelve minutes per day!

For a watch normally rated (by Bulova) as "... accurate to a minute a month."

Clearly ... unquestionably--

"Something" had reached out from Venus at the precise moment it was geometrically projected against the visible edge of our closest star -- when, remember, Venus was ~25 million miles away from Earth -- and (somehow!) "touched " our little Accutron detector ... with an inertial change to its tuning fork fully one sixth of the same effect DePalma had previously measured ... when the watch was mere inches from a massive ~30-lb steel/aluminum disc, spinning at 7600 rpm, in his lab!

Venus and the Sun -- by means of their own extraordinary masses and separate, but reversed, rotations (Venus spins backwards, remember ...) -- were obviously creating their own extraordinarily powerful, interfering "torsionl fields" -- just as we predicted!!

Which (from the frequency plot - above) were clearly able to send successive, "interfering waves" of torsion (note the descending, "bell-like ringing" ... as Venus fully "cleared" the Sun) to visibly interact with, and change the inertia of, the tiny tuning fork inside our Accutron!

It was an extraordinary and startling scientific moment of discovery -- a clear, measureable demonstration of the reality of DePalma's rotationally-induced "inertial/torsion fields." But, more than that, it was a vivid confirmation that outside the lab ... celestial "planetary alignments" of major members of the solar system (Hyperdimensional Astrology, anyone ...?) can and do have extremely powerful -- and physically measureable -- effects on Earth--

If you have the correct physics model ... and the right detection equipment!

As I watched the Sun rise over the edge of the Atlantic -- with tiny Venus (remember, the size of the Earth ..!) just dimpling its western edge, and, unbelievingly, simultaneously watched the computer screen trace the invisible "torsion field" interactions between Venus and the Sun at that same moment -- I couldn't help but wonder--

"What would Bruce think about this amazing confirmation?!"

DePalma had a quirky sense of humor, perhaps best revealed by his naming of this mysterious "inertial field" ... the "OD field."

Thinking of DePalma at that remarkable moment, I couldn't help but also think "how odd ... that he's not here to share this."

 

* * *

 

However, as Depalma had observed himself years before, the resulting influence of these "OD field" effects -- be it from spinning laboratory discs ... rotating planets ... and even massive stars (!) -- is NOT limited to mechanical objects, like "tuning forks" ....

As he noted--

 

"... the effect of a field which confers inertia on objects immersed within it can be applied to a number of [other] situations, not all of which have to be mechanical, i.e. chemical reactions are [also measureably] affected by such a field. Reactions which do not take place under 'normal' conditions may be catalyzed. Other reactions may be inhibited [emphasis added] ...."

 

Returning us to the problem of von Braun's "anomaly."

Confirmation of DePalma's projected"OD field chemical effect" (to use his term ...) raised the fascinating prospect that the physical act of rotating those upper rocket stages of the Jupiter-C had also, somehow, altered the physical chemistry of the solid rockets in those upper stages! This, in turn, could have markedly increased the efficiency of their previously estimated thrust and/or ISP!

More precisely--

That their physical rotation (ala DePalma ...) had significantly altered what was occurring at the moment of ignition -- by triggering a fundamental enhancement of the rockets' chemical reactions ... during the actual burning of the solid propellants!

Remember DePalma's previous analysis, that "... the behavior of rotating objects is explained simply on the addition of free energy to whatever motion the rotating object is [already] making ..."?

What if, as DePalma theorized, this fundamental "free energy" addition also extended down to the atomic and molecular levels?!; what if the "addition of energy" -- to whatever motions are occurring within "the OD field" of a rotating system -- also automatically enhances the thermodynamic efficiency of reactions occurring at the molecular and atomic levels in that system!?

In other words: what if the sheer rotation of those solid-propellant upper stages, by being enveloped in their own "OD field," substantially increased their ISPs ... and thus, their effective thrust efficiencies?!!

 

 

Could "Von Braun's Secret" that night have involved far more than just a blatant violation of "Newton's Laws ..." (as serious as that obviously was ...) caused by an inertial change in those upper stages created by "rotation?"; could "the Secret" also have encompassed an almost trivial means of tapping directly into unlimited "free energy" for ANY chemical reaction -- by the simple act of rotation ...?

As should be readily apparent to anyone thinking deeply about all this, von Braun himself clearly (if inadvertantly) had tripped over "a vast source of free energy in space..." -- simply in those mysteriously enlarged "satellite orbits" -- regardless of the details of how he actually did it ....

Which "they," for obvious reasons (Big Oil, anyone?), immediately suppressed ....

Imagine what the world would look like now ... in 2008 -- half a century after these historic events ... if, instead of being immediately hidden, this extraordinary discovery had been triumphantly announced within a few days by the Eisenhower White House ... and then, made openly available to scientists and engineers around the world ... even in the former Soviet Union.

Would we even recognize our planet now ...?

 

* * *

 

With our clear identification of Explorer I's "non-Newtonian anomalies" as being due to the rotation of the launch vehicle's solid-rocket stages, the celestial-mechanics "fix" for future US space missions -- including the Apollo Program -- was as simple as it was obvious:

DON'T rotate!

So, the fascinating question then becomes: "when" did von Braun and JPL also come to this critical conclusion?

In other words, when did they "figure out" (regarding Newton's Laws ...) what Bruce DePalma, independently, would also realize through experiment ... two decades later?

 

"The fact that Newton’s Laws do not distinguish between the spinning and the non-rotating object represents the state of mechanical knowledge at the time. But because Newton did not distinguish between rotation and non-rotation, Einstein did not distinguish between the so-called inert and 'gravitational mass.' The fact that rotation affects the mechanical properties of objects places Newton’s Laws as a special case and invalidates a geometrical [Einsteinian] interpretation of space.

"… in a strict sense, the precise application of Newton’s laws [based on these experiments] … have to be restricted to non-rotating mechanical objects in field-free space. In a gravitational field, the possibility of extraction of greater energy by a new mechanical dimension [rotation] opens up the possibility [against both Newton and Einstein] of an anti-gravitational interaction [emphasis added] ….”

-- "Gravity & The Spinning Ball Experiment"
Bruce DePalma

Simularity Institute, March 17, 1977

 

So, von Braun and Pickering eventually realized that, if you wanted a spacecraft to follow predictable Newtonian celestial mechanics -- in Earth orbit ... going to the Moon ... or traveling anywhere Beyond--

Rule One -- don't let it rotate!

As we described in Part I, this now explains JPL's (as viewed at the time ...) "highly risky sudden spacecraft engineering decisions ..." to abandon well-tested spinning system concepts (used in JPL's previous Explorer series ...), and to severely"push the envelope" -- to embark on a radically new type of spacecraft construction ... pioneered in (what would soon become ...) "the ill-fated, problem-plagued, Ranger Lunar Program":

A Program attempting to make available to US space planners, for the first time "... a three-axis, non-rotating, fully stabilized spacecraft design."

Seen against the serious space navigation problems of the "non-Newtonian anomaly" (that JPL was also obviously racing the clock to try to "figure out"), this risky engineering decision, in hindsight, now makes perfect sense.

So, the question looms ... again: "when did JPL first realize that rotation was 'the enemy?'"

To answer that key question, we must go back once more in time ... to before the shock of Sputnik.

 

* * *

 

Bill Pickering was named Director of JPL in 1954.

Immediately upon Pickering's appointment, as part of his own long-term agenda to turn JPL "into the premiere space laboratory in the world ..." the new Director began pushing a plan to the Pentagon (the only agency funding "space" in those pre-Sputnik days ...) for an unmanned lunar probe, called "Project Red Socks" (and, try as I might, I cannot find out where this name originated! As an emigrated New Zealander, I'm convinced Pickering was NOT a fan of "a certain Boston baseball team ..." so, the origin of this proposed name remains ... obscure).

In an era when the idea of just launching "a satellite into orbit ... " was viewed by Washington as "still one step removed from science fiction ..." (remember, this is why the "Jet Propulsion Laboratory" -- which never built a "jet," but designed only rockets in its early years -- decided to use the more "acceptable" designation "jet" in all its contracts with the Army ...)--

Pickering's idea went ... nowhere.

Then--

Sputnik happened.

Pickering promptly resubmitted "Project Red Socks" (which, by then, had morphed into an entire "JPL unmanned lunar program ...") to the Pentagon.

Again, it went nowhere--

Until ... months later ... the newly-formed ARPA suddenly latched onto the idea, renamed it "Project Pioneer," and split the program (and the contracts) between the US Air Force and the US Army (with JPL getting the job of building the Army's lunar version ...).

What's fascinating about "Red Socks" is how Pickering was originally proposing to send an umnanned spacecraft to the Moon ... and get it back.

For, in his design, the spacecraft was to carry a high-quality reconnaisance camera loaded with film (no "television") ... which would loop around the Moon (red line - below), acquiring photographic-quality images of the entire "hidden side" ... before physically returning to Earth, reentering ... and then being retrieved -- so that the film could be developed and physically examined at JPL!

(Two decades later, the Soviets would do EXACTLY that ... with Zond 5, in late 1968. And -- they'd use "Eastman Kodak film" to do it!)

 

 

Pickering built his proposal around von Braun's parallel development (discussed earlier ...) of a "survivable reentry vehicle" for a nuclear warhead, yet to be tested (in 1954) by a Jupiter-C IRBM (below). This indicates the extremely close working relationship between Bill Pickering and Wernher von Braun, long before Sputnik and Explorer (note the 11 Sergeant rockets visible in this photograph, down through the holes in the top of the Jupiter-C's rotating "tub" -- just below the one-third scale model of the reentry vehicle itself).

 

 

However, there was one major detail about "Project Red Socks" which, in hindsight, could make one question what von Braun and JPL really knew about the entire "non-Newtonian anomaly" ... and, when they knew it; this detail centers on that fact that, if it had been funded, Pickering's "Red Socks" proposal would have encountered exactly the same "non-Newtonian problem" ... and for exactly the same reasons ... as Explorer, Vanguard and Pioneer ....

For--

As you can see from this artist's concept (below), the Red Socks design also featured "a ring of solid-fueled rockets, surrounding a single upper stage ..." -- to which the camera-carrying lunar spacecraft would have been attached--

 

 

EXACTLY--

Like the later Explorer I and Pioneer Jupiter-C configurations -- with their own "spinning upper stages," and "spacecraft bolted to the final rocket!"

Here (below ) is the startling visual comparison; on the right, Bill Pickering (in 1992), holding a plexiglass model of Explorer I.

In the background of the same photograph (to his left -- with cylindrical housing removed ...), a scale model of the upper stage "spinning tub" of von Braun's Jupiter-C satellite launcher, with the Explorer satellite attached. Note again, the circular placement of the 11 "cut-down Sergeant rockets" of the second stage, and the conical housing of the third stage (hiding its three additional cut-down Sergeants) protruding from their center ... to attach points on the solitary fourth stage -- with the (thermally-striped) model of Explorer I on top.

The comparison graphic (below- left) is Pickering's earlier "'Red Socks' upper stage and lunar probe configuration ...."

 

 

Eerie ....

Pickering was (obviously) "playing to JPL's own unique history" with his 1954 proposal -- the solid rockets that, up until that point, had formed the foundation of JPL's entire reputation ... the solid rockets that Jack Parson's had successfully created, decades earlier ... for a laboratory which (some still insist ...) actually bears the initials of his name, because of that singular, far-reaching contribution to the American space program ....

And, though it's not overtly stated by any sources I could find, Pickering's plan to use an array of these solid rockets to send a camera to the Moon would have automatically demanded that they also spin -- otherwise, the unbalanced thrust of their individual variations (as we have seen ...) would have sent the proposed lunar spacecraft careening wildly off-course ... the same reason that the upper stages of the Jupiter-C (and the Juno-2 lunar version ...) also had to spin.

But, looking at these (essentially ...) identical upper stage configurations, I couldn't help but wonder once again--

"What did Bill Pickering (or, his JPL engineers ...) really know -- and when did they first know know it ... about the other effects of such an upper stage rotation?"

For, while working on ever larger versions of Jack Parson's solid-fuel rockets after WWII (below), even then some JPL engineers were looking upward ... toward the Moon--

 

"... the most famous JPL product of that time was a small-scale prototype of Corporal called WAC Corporal (Without Attitude Control), some of which were used as a second stage of [the] V-2, reaching altitudes of more than 400 km and inaugurating, on [sic] 1950, the atlantic coast missile range which became the Cape Canaveral 'spaceport.' While working on this historic project, some laboratory engineers calculated, as a joke, that by using the full scale Corporal missile and a cluster of anti-aircraft Loki solid-fueled rockets, it was possible to hurl to the Moon ... an empty beer can (emphasis added]!"

 

 

With a spinning upper stage configuration, as we now know, that "empty beer can" easily could have grown ... into a full-fledged camera-laden mission!

So, when did Pickering first realize that the "secret" to significantly increasing the ISP efficiency of his JPL solid-fueled rockets (and thus, their payloads) was just ... to "spin them!?"

And -- when did he first tip off von Braun ...?

From the "spinning technology" of the mysterious Nazi Bell, to the "spinning upper stages" of Pickering's aborted "Project Red Socks," to Pickering's extension of that same "spinning technology" to the upper stages of von Braun's own Jupiter-C launch vehicle itself ... rotation seemed to professionally surround von Braun at every turn (sorry ...).

Yet, after the startling anomalies of Explorer I, von Braun himself seemed profoundly shocked, if not genuinely confused, by the dynamical behavior he was observing. What did he do then?; he began secretly writing to key experts around the world, to anyone who might have a clue as what had really caused Explorer I's (to him ...) "inexplicable behavior."

Not exactly the actions of "somone in the know."'

So, did either of them -- Pickering or von Braun -- know, before Explorer I, what was really going on?

In my professional opinion -- based on this extensive research into von Braun's actions following Explorer's launch (and Pickering's equally documentable, independent, herculian efforts to overcome -- with an entirely new type of spacecraft -- the "non-Newtonian anomaly" in the wake of Explorer I ...)--

No ....

Neither man ... knew anything!

Life is simply full of "irony and strange (some might even say 'hyperdimensional') coincidences ...."

The fact that Pickering's "rotating solid-rockets" were the only available means -- both to an early satellite launch into Earth orbit, and to early efforts to send a US spacecraft to the Moon, and, that in order for them to work as advertized, they had to spin -- is, in my opinion, just exactly that:

A remarkable ... almost providential ... historical ... coincidence.

The fact is that von Braun had to choose Pickering's "rotating, solid-rockets" ... if he wanted, at that point of US technological development, to successfully launch anything!

And, if all this hadn't been just "sheer coincidence" ... JPL wouldn't have immediately undertaken the almost impossible task of creating an entirely new space technology, after Explorer I -- a non-rotating lunar and planetary spacecraft "bus." And, von Braun wouldn't have held out for four full years (as we noted in Part I), before suddenly, without any prior warning, reversing his previous position and approving "LOR" for the Apollo Program ... after he (we believe, from all the evidence) finally got the word that JPL had "fixed" the "non-Newtonian problem."

However, all that said ... it is this remarkable set of "conspiring coincidences" that has now given us a stunning new set of blatant clues -- "... those mysteriously enlarged, totally revealing, satellite orbits of the Earth ... " (that no one can successfully suppress much longer) to the almost unlimited potential for HD Physics ... right here on Earth--

To truly change the world ....

 

* * *

 

So, just how certain am I that these remarkable HD "rotational effects" can now account for the all flagrant Explorer, Vanguard and Pioneer satellite anomalies?--

About ninty-nine percent ....

Because--

There were subsequent instances of these same "HD rotational effects" observed in the continuing Explorer Program, which reinforces the idea that it was also due to this same "anomalous physics" ....

George Ludwig -- Van Allen's chief assistent (and designer of all the electronics for the radiation detectors carried in the Explorer spacecraft) -- wrote a remarkable personal description of one fascinating ... and now quite telling ... subsequent "incident." It is clear, however, that he too obviously had no idea what he was actually witnessing ....

Wrote Ludwig:

 

"... my Journal also reported ... the most serious problem from my point of view ... the difficulty in commanding playback of the [spacecraft's on-board] tape recorder. When the spin-up of the upper rocket stages was started at X-11 minutes, the recorder operated normally at first. But by the time the spin rate reached 550 revolutions per minute (out of 750 rpm needed for flight) we were unable to get a response from our radio commands for playback. The Launch Director interrupted the spin-up, slowed it down, and then increased the rate gradually. Playback was successful at 450 rpm but not at 500.


"All of this was happening within the final minutes of the countdown, while the rocket sat there fully fueled and ready to go. The pressure for a final go/no-go decision was intense, as further delay would have meant canceling the launch for that evening and recycling for the following day or later. While we held up the launch for 18 minutes, the payload manager, other payload engineers, and I had a spirited discussion, and concluded that the problem was with the on-pad commanding link, not the recorder itself. Specifically, we believed that there was a problem with the grounding path for the interrogating signal, and expected that operation would be normal once the rocket was free of the cluttered pad environment. We all agreed to proceed based on that assessment.


"The official launch time was 1:28 PM, EST on Wednesday, 5 March 1958. Performance of the Redstone first stage booster rocket appeared to be normal throughout its burning. Later analyses indicated that the firing of stages one, two, and three were all normal. However, the fourth stage apparently failed to ignite, for reasons that were never completely determined, and the launch attempt failed. The satellite payload plummeted into the Atlantic Ocean about 1900 miles downrange from Cape Canaveral [emphasis added] ...."

 

By his own admission, Ludwig's dismissal of the pre-launch "tape recorder problem ..." -- as "merely radio interference from the clutter on the launch pad," exacerbated by the high-pressure "go/no go" pre-launch enviroment -- unfortunately encouraged the collective decision to "just resume the count and launch ..." without taking the time to properly analyze the situation. Which, unfortunately, resulted in the subsequent loss of the entire spacecraft "for reasons that were never completely determined ...."

Decades later, through another of his remarkable "rotational experiments," DePalma would (again!) expose the real "HD Physics" behind what likely happened to Explorer II.

Following DePalma's many experiments -- that had increasingly verified the existence of a remarkable, uniquely geometric "OD field" around all massive, spinning objects (and even small ones ...) -- DePalma naturally began to wonder about the effects of such an "inertial field" on non-mechanical systems ... specifically, on complex electronics ... like "an off-the-shelf FM stereo receiver" (below).

 

 

Here's DePalma's description of an experiment he neatly carried out, to determine what those effects actually might be ....

 

"... because of the uniqueness of the [OD field] behavior, corroboration [of an electronic effect] was attempted in the form of an experiment to alter the tuning of a radio-frequency circuit oscillating at 106 megacycles [megahertz]. The expected effect did indeed take place with a frequency shift measured to be about 2500 cycles [2.5 parts in 10(5)] relative to an oscillator located remotely at a distance of 70 miles and communicated to it by radio [emphasis added] ...."

-- "Simularity: a New Theory of Physical Phenomena"
Bruce DePalma

Simularity Institute, June 15, 1973

 

The results of DePalma's "inertial field radio experiment" are illustrated below.

The frequency plot of the received FM signal, when the ~30-lb, aluminum/steel disc was NOT rotating, is displayed as the essentially horizontal "noisy" white line on the bottom of the graph (lower right). The frequency of the received signal when the disc was spinning (at ~8000 rpm ...) is displayed in yellow (upper right).

An artistic rendition of the FM transmitter is on the left.

 

 

The fact that the distantly transmitted signal (when the receiver was "within the field" of the rotating disc in Depalma's lab) seemed to have a semi-regular "frequency periodicity," indicated that the generation of an "OD field" by physical rotation was also NOT a "static phenomenon" ... but seemed to have multiple, drifting, interfering frequency components of its own -- which resonated (in some, still undetermined fashion ...) with the receiver's own electrically resonant circuits ....

Exactly like what we saw -- when measuring (with the Accutron ...) the "OD field" from Venus, "interfering with" (modulating ...) the Sun's much greater "OD field" (below)!

 

 

DePalma (remember, an MIT/Harvard electrical engineer ...) described his first impressions of the "radio shift experiment," based on the "variable inertia" model, thus--

 

"... the radio frequency shift experiment demonstrates the existence of a phenomena, created here on Earth, which can alter the frequency of an oscillating circuit, independent of any electro-magnetic interaction. The phenomena of electrical resonance is created through the interaction of inductance and capacitance existing in what are known as lumped circuit elements. As these are real physical objects, we should expect that any field or effect which altered the inertial properties of the materials from which these are made would affect the frequency of vibratory electrical resonance [emphasis added] ...."

 

Later, as we have seen, DePalma rethought some of these initial assumptions -- and moved from "the OD field/torsion field creates a true variable inertia in physical objects," to a model which invoked the field's ability "to channel energy from the vacuum" (hyperspace!) into existing energy processes already occurring in these 3-D objects ....

In that model, the effect of the "rotational OD field" on the stereo receiver's circuits could be viewed as directly altering either their voltage, reactance or amperage (or, all three!) ... leading, in the end, to the same rhythmic, resonant frequency changes that were observed ....

Whatever the ultimate physical process (and, unfortunately, DePalma never had adequate resources to determine what that might have been ...) the fact that an "OD field" -- from an EM shielded, spinning laboratory disc -- could significantly affect the electrical circuitry of an off-the-shelf stereo receiver placed withinin mere proximity, has extraordinary, far-reaching implications ....

Including ... for the failed attempt to launch Explorer II!

Clearly, Ludwig's Journal description of what occurred, as "the tub" was gradually spun up to its rated "750 rpm for flight," and the failure of the tape recorder (newly added for this mission) radio commanding circuits suddenly occurred "above 500 rpm ..." is compelling evidence that it was the ROTATION of "the tub" which (somehow ...) was "the problem."

However, completely lacking ANY appropriate physical theory (unlike us ...) as to how a physically rotating set of rockets could possibly affect the radio circuits of the Explorer II spacecraft, the Launch Director (with Ludwig's grudging concurrence ...) decided to proceed ....

With the unfortunate, disasterous consequences.

It doesn't take much extrapolation from DePalma's historic "radio frequency experiment" -- carried out within the powerful torsion field of his rotating laboratory disc -- to envision what happened to Explorer II; somehow, the "torsion field" created by the spinning "tub" above 500 rpm, altered the electrical properties of the on-board tape recorder radio circuits just enough ... to interfere with their ability to carry information reliably to and from the ground.

Unknown to the launch team, these same "inertial field effects" likely were ALSO interfering simultaneously with the firing circuits of the fourth stage itself [perhaps, because of physical proximity of both sets of the wires leading to the tape recorder in the satellite, which (remember) was physically bolted to the top of the fourth stage]!

Clearly, in light of DePalma's definitive radio experiment (and at a frequency only slightly different than Explorer's 108 megahertz!), the evidence is heavily in favor of "an HD Physics cause" for the subsequent inability of Explorer II to successfully reach orbit--

The first compelling case for a truly "hyperdimensional failure" in the US space program!

 

* * *

 

Which brings us to the little matter of "the Soviets."

Unlike the Americans, because the USSR was using BIG converted ICBMS (Korolyov's "R-7" boosters - below) to put their "several-thousand-pound satellites" into Earth orbit [or to send their first, almost half ton (!) unmanned lunar probes toward the Moon], they didn't have to rely on "marginal clusters of solid rockets" in the final stages, to "barely put up a few-pounds ...."

 

 

Ergo ... they didn't have to spin their boosters!

So, why -- with a liquid fueled (kerosene and liquid oxygen), non-spinning "Block E" third stage -- weighing over a ton itself, and directed to the Moon by a set of sophisticated "state-of-the-art, radio interferometry navigation beams" from Earth--

Why, with all that going for them ... did the Soviets still miss the Moon on their first try by those "~3700 miles!?"

And why, ten months later ... did they then "get it right" (somehow) and squarely hit it?

The answer to that fascinating question which, on the face of it, would seem to undercut our entire thesis in this paper -- that, to invoke HD Physics and the "non-Newtonian anomaly" in celestial navigation, requires that some part of the booster rocket spin ....

Is, in fact, the visible exception ... "that proves the rule."

Because, again -- drawing on the actual HD experiments conducted by DePalma -- we've even been able to figure out the answer to that mysterious little Cold War question:

The key to solving this remaining "celestial-mechanics mystery" is in this little gem from Bruce DePalma, once again--

 

"... mechanical energy of motion, stored in the created inertial property, od, appears as an inertial field. This inertial field has the property of conferring inertia on surrounding material objects -- and a reduction in the frequency of oscillating electrical circuits placed in the vicinity of the energized machine [emphasis added] .... "

 

Think.

Even in non-rotating spacecraft ... in their boosters ... in their "instrument units" ... what is the one thing which is always rotating -- even if the vehicles do not.

The gyroscopes.

All spacecraft (and their associated launch vehicles ...) have to have a number of whirling gyroscopes in their on-board "inertial navigation systems." These devices literally steer the vehicles, providing on-board 3-D coordinates for ground-based navigation and (along with other on-board devices, called "accelerometers") provide absolutely critical reference points for any spacecraft trying to reach any distant destination ....

The gyros always have to spin!

Back to DePalma--

 

"… the [inertial altering, OD field] effect is roughly proportional to the radius and mass [of the rotating object] … and to the square of the rotational speed [emphasis added] ….”

 

So, if you have a big "dumb" object -- like a main stage booster, or a set of upper stages -- and you spin them ... you get a certain "OD Effect," depending on how fast they rotate.

But--

If you have a set of tiny, low mass objects -- the gyroscopes in the on-board inertial navigation systems -- but you spin them "like the proverbial bat out of hell ..." you can get a MUCH greater proportional effect--

Because -- their individual torsion fields are directly proportional to the square of their individual rates of spin!

The key is in DePalma's crucial observation "... this inertial field has the property of conferring inertia on surrounding material objects."

What happened to the Soviets was elemental:

The torsion fields of the internal, spinning gysroscopes -- rotating upwards of ~100,000 rpm -- conferred their torsion field effects to the larger vehicle ... causing it to drift off a "straight Newtonian trajectory" ... across ~240,000 miles ... by just enough to miss the Moon by that "... 3700 miles."

By Luna -2 (ten months later ...) the Soviets had obviously "figured this out" ... and, made the appropriate "mid-course corrections" enroute to the Moon.

Which then allowed them---

To hit the Moon "dead on!"

Which leaves only the future technological effects of this extraordinary discovery on the quietly developing private space programs trying to "get off the ground" -- Burt Rutan, Sir Richard Branson, Elon Musk, etc., etc., etc. ....

And -- how this same technology can also now be used to dramatially improve the "everyday lives" of everyone on Earth!

Stay tuned ....

 

 

-0-

 

 

Part III of "Von Braun's 50-Year-Old Secret" ... Coming Soon

 

Join the Enterprise Conference – and Explore the Implications of This Remarkable New Discovery with Other Members of the “Enterprise Crew” ….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Check out the Enterprise Mission Viewscreen for our streaming digital video library.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013   Richard C. Hoagland+ All Rights Reserved