|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 9:00 pm |
|
|
|
|
After reading an article about areas where objects roll uphill I was curious
to see for myself. I was expecting to come across an optical illusion as
explained in the below reading.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/roll-uphill.html
Unfortunately it appeared that the above reading could not explain my
findings:
I went to check out Gravity Hill in Bedford County (Near New Paris)
Pennsylvania (PA), USA a few months ago and went there as a true skeptic.
After driving several hours from Brooklyn to what I felt was the middle of
nowhere I arrived upon the spot and powered up my GPS Receiver.
From the bottom of the hill I recorded the following coordinates:
Latitude 40.11129 North
Longitude 78.69286 West
Altitude 1428.15 ft.
I turned my vehicle off and let the car roll uphill.
The GPS recorded at the point where my vehicle stopped as:
Latitude 40.11068 North
Longitude 78.69157 West
Altitude 1462.27 ft.
So my 4342 pound truck did climb approximately 34 ft uphill. I have no
explanation but unless my GPS readings are incorrect, this is definitely not
an optical illusion. Share this information with any individuals that you
believe may be interested in this type of research. I'll be heading back
out there in the spring with a camera, and other recording devices to better
record the anomaly.
Karl Lherisson
http://www.lherisson.com
Brooklyn, NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Franz Heymann |
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 10:52 pm |
|
|
|
|
<karl123@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:j6-dnfwLH-QmenGiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net...
[quote:136acf9fad]After reading an article about areas where objects roll uphill I was
curious
to see for myself. I was expecting to come across an optical illusion as
explained in the below reading.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/roll-uphill.html
Unfortunately it appeared that the above reading could not explain my
findings:
I went to check out Gravity Hill in Bedford County (Near New Paris)
Pennsylvania (PA), USA a few months ago and went there as a true skeptic.
After driving several hours from Brooklyn to what I felt was the middle of
nowhere I arrived upon the spot and powered up my GPS Receiver.
From the bottom of the hill I recorded the following coordinates:
Latitude 40.11129 North
Longitude 78.69286 West
Altitude 1428.15 ft.
I turned my vehicle off and let the car roll uphill.
The GPS recorded at the point where my vehicle stopped as:
Latitude 40.11068 North
Longitude 78.69157 West
Altitude 1462.27 ft.
So my 4342 pound truck did climb approximately 34 ft uphill. I have no
explanation but unless my GPS readings are incorrect, this is definitely
not
an optical illusion. Share this information with any individuals that you
believe may be interested in this type of research. I'll be heading back
out there in the spring with a camera, and other recording devices to
better
record the anomaly.
[/quote:136acf9fad]
What were the standard deviations associated with those measurements?
Without them, the observation is useless.
Franz
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Franz Heymann |
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 10:55 pm |
|
|
|
|
"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031226235724.21586.00000991@mb-m23.aol.com...
[snip]
[quote:4ae7e1458b]Nope, you are incorrect like usual again. One can actually roll up
hill.
How? The sea level or elevation level of the land is actually lower than
the
appearance of the up hill movement, which allows a car to appear to roll
up
hill. This was figured out years ago.
[/quote:4ae7e1458b]
You might possibly know what you are saying. Nobody else does.
Franz
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:02 pm |
|
|
|
|
karl123@speakeasy.net wrote:
[quote:2d695e6630]
After reading an article about areas where objects roll uphill I was curious
to see for myself. I was expecting to come across an optical illusion as
explained in the below reading.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/roll-uphill.html
Unfortunately it appeared that the above reading could not explain my
findings:
I went to check out Gravity Hill in Bedford County (Near New Paris)
Pennsylvania (PA), USA a few months ago and went there as a true skeptic.
After driving several hours from Brooklyn to what I felt was the middle of
nowhere I arrived upon the spot and powered up my GPS Receiver.
From the bottom of the hill I recorded the following coordinates:
Latitude 40.11129 North
Longitude 78.69286 West
Altitude 1428.15 ft.
I turned my vehicle off and let the car roll uphill.
The GPS recorded at the point where my vehicle stopped as:
Latitude 40.11068 North
Longitude 78.69157 West
Altitude 1462.27 ft.
So my 4342 pound truck did climb approximately 34 ft uphill. I have no
explanation but unless my GPS readings are incorrect, this is definitely not
an optical illusion. Share this information with any individuals that you
believe may be interested in this type of research. I'll be heading back
out there in the spring with a camera, and other recording devices to better
record the anomaly.
Karl Lherisson
http://www.lherisson.com
Brooklyn, NY
[/quote:2d695e6630]
Once an illusion... always an illusion! See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/roll-uphill.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:11 pm |
|
|
|
|
If this is the case, can you explain the increase in altitude? I already
read the article that's why I took along a GPS receiver to ensure what I was
experiencing was not an optical illusion. My GPS coordinates confirm that I
did not roll downhill and indeed rolled uphill.
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3FED0460.5EE074B@mchsi.com...
[quote:974b5ec00e]karl123@speakeasy.net wrote:
After reading an article about areas where objects roll uphill I was
curious
to see for myself. I was expecting to come across an optical illusion
as
explained in the below reading.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/roll-uphill.html
Unfortunately it appeared that the above reading could not explain my
findings:
I went to check out Gravity Hill in Bedford County (Near New Paris)
Pennsylvania (PA), USA a few months ago and went there as a true
skeptic.
After driving several hours from Brooklyn to what I felt was the middle
of
nowhere I arrived upon the spot and powered up my GPS Receiver.
From the bottom of the hill I recorded the following coordinates:
Latitude 40.11129 North
Longitude 78.69286 West
Altitude 1428.15 ft.
I turned my vehicle off and let the car roll uphill.
The GPS recorded at the point where my vehicle stopped as:
Latitude 40.11068 North
Longitude 78.69157 West
Altitude 1462.27 ft.
So my 4342 pound truck did climb approximately 34 ft uphill. I have no
explanation but unless my GPS readings are incorrect, this is definitely
not
an optical illusion. Share this information with any individuals that
you
believe may be interested in this type of research. I'll be heading
back
out there in the spring with a camera, and other recording devices to
better
record the anomaly.
Karl Lherisson
http://www.lherisson.com
Brooklyn, NY
Once an illusion... always an illusion! See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/roll-uphill.html[/quote:974b5ec00e]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:24 pm |
|
|
|
|
karl123@speakeasy.net wrote:
[quote:a294b9f78a]
If this is the case, can you explain the increase in altitude? I already
read the article that's why I took along a GPS receiver to ensure what I was
experiencing was not an optical illusion. My GPS coordinates confirm that I
did not roll downhill and indeed rolled uphill.
[/quote:a294b9f78a]
Karl the altitude output of the GPS receiver your are using has a
much greater error that the value you were trying to measure. Do
the experiment many many times and data will tell you a different
story.
Regards,
-Sam
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| S. Enterprize Company |
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:57 pm |
|
|
|
|
[quote:bc4e2e7f68]karl123@speakeasy.net wrote:
If this is the case, can you explain the increase in altitude? I already
read the article that's why I took along a GPS receiver to ensure what I
was
experiencing was not an optical illusion. My GPS coordinates confirm that
I
did not roll downhill and indeed rolled uphill.
Karl the altitude output of the GPS receiver your are using has a
much greater error that the value you were trying to measure. Do
the experiment many many times and data will tell you a different
story.
Regards,
-Sam
[/quote:bc4e2e7f68]
Nope, you are incorrect like usual again. One can actually roll up hill.
How? The sea level or elevation level of the land is actually lower than the
appearance of the up hill movement, which allows a car to appear to roll up
hill. This was figured out years ago.
Cranks Of Physics
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/CRANKS.html
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:59 pm |
|
|
|
|
I would have agreed with you but at the time I did the experiment three
times. All the time with similar results. I was using a WAAS (Wide Area
Augmentation System) compatible GPS Receiver (TripNav TN-204). WAAS is
supposed to provide typical GPS accuracy of under 3 meters. Most typical
GPS receivers should have an accuracy of about 15 meters. Although there is
a possibility that the accuracy on the GPS was off (I'll assume that my
reading had the highest margin of error of 10 feet per reading) it always
demonstrated an increase in altitude as I rolled on the hill. Even if I
take the margin of error into account on both readings of 10 ft that would
equate to a maximum error of 20 ft. My final find still showed a 30 ft
difference. So that would not explain (assuming my readings were off) of an
increase in altitude of 10 ft.
Would it be advisable to bring along an altimeter? (Do such devices have a
greater accuracy?) I'd like to perform every test possible and post my
findings so that I can rest assured that this is just not an illusion.
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3FED0987.61E627BD@mchsi.com...
[quote:5c4bc1937a]karl123@speakeasy.net wrote:
If this is the case, can you explain the increase in altitude? I already
read the article that's why I took along a GPS receiver to ensure what I
was
experiencing was not an optical illusion. My GPS coordinates confirm
that I
did not roll downhill and indeed rolled uphill.
Karl the altitude output of the GPS receiver your are using has a
much greater error that the value you were trying to measure. Do
the experiment many many times and data will tell you a different
story.
Regards,
-Sam[/quote:5c4bc1937a]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mu-Pi |
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 12:02 am |
|
|
|
|
"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031226235724.21586.00000991@mb-m23.aol.com...
[quote:26a19e6d95]karl123@speakeasy.net wrote:
If this is the case, can you explain the increase in altitude? I
already
read the article that's why I took along a GPS receiver to ensure what
I
was
experiencing was not an optical illusion. My GPS coordinates confirm
that
I
did not roll downhill and indeed rolled uphill.
Karl the altitude output of the GPS receiver your are using has a
much greater error that the value you were trying to measure. Do
the experiment many many times and data will tell you a different
story.
Regards,
-Sam
Nope, you are incorrect like usual again. One can actually roll up
hill.
How? The sea level or elevation level of the land is actually lower than
the
appearance of the up hill movement, which allows a car to appear to roll
up
hill. This was figured out years ago.
[/quote:26a19e6d95]
Your stupidy is astounding, 1234.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 12:08 am |
|
|
|
|
karl123@speakeasy.net wrote:
[quote:3d9d9fc342]
I would have agreed with you but at the time I did the experiment three
times. All the time with similar results. I was using a WAAS (Wide Area
Augmentation System) compatible GPS Receiver (TripNav TN-204). WAAS is
supposed to provide typical GPS accuracy of under 3 meters. Most typical
GPS receivers should have an accuracy of about 15 meters.
[/quote:3d9d9fc342]
Those figures you are quoting are "horizontal" accuracy figures.
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/2001SPSPerformanceStandardFINAL.pdf
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_accuracy.html
Although there is
[quote:3d9d9fc342]a possibility that the accuracy on the GPS was off (I'll assume that my
reading had the highest margin of error of 10 feet per reading) it always
demonstrated an increase in altitude as I rolled on the hill. Even if I
take the margin of error into account on both readings of 10 ft that would
equate to a maximum error of 20 ft. My final find still showed a 30 ft
difference. So that would not explain (assuming my readings were off) of an
increase in altitude of 10 ft.
Would it be advisable to bring along an altimeter? (Do such devices have a
greater accuracy?) I'd like to perform every test possible and post my
findings so that I can rest assured that this is just not an illusion.
[/quote:3d9d9fc342]
Try an altimeter... and not just one measurement.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Henry |
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 12:26 am |
|
|
|
|
"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031226235724.21586.00000991@mb-m23.aol.com...
[quote:c4ba575b5e]karl123@speakeasy.net wrote:
If this is the case, can you explain the increase in altitude? I
already
read the article that's why I took along a GPS receiver to ensure what
I
was
experiencing was not an optical illusion. My GPS coordinates confirm
that
I
did not roll downhill and indeed rolled uphill.
Karl the altitude output of the GPS receiver your are using has a
much greater error that the value you were trying to measure. Do
the experiment many many times and data will tell you a different
story.
Regards,
-Sam
Nope, you are incorrect like usual again. One can actually roll up
hill.
How? The sea level or elevation level of the land is actually lower than
the
appearance of the up hill movement,
[/quote:c4ba575b5e]
What?
[quote:c4ba575b5e]which allows a car to appear to roll up
hill. This was figured out years ago.[/quote:c4ba575b5e]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul R. Mays |
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:23 am |
|
|
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bsjhe1$eom$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
[quote:a157b3797b]
"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031226235724.21586.00000991@mb-m23.aol.com...
[snip]
Nope, you are incorrect like usual again. One can actually roll up
hill.
How? The sea level or elevation level of the land is actually lower than
the
appearance of the up hill movement, which allows a car to appear to roll
up
hill. This was figured out years ago.
You might possibly know what you are saying. Nobody else does.
Franz
[/quote:a157b3797b]
Franz...
I know what he's saying... I can read the little words..
What I don't know is what he means by what he types
because its generally incoherent.... 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| S. Enterprize Company |
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:53 am |
|
|
|
|
[quote:87de5b0701]"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031226235724.21586.00000991@mb-m23.aol.com...
[snip]
Nope, you are incorrect like usual again. One can actually roll up
hill.
How? The sea level or elevation level of the land is actually lower than
the
appearance of the up hill movement, which allows a car to appear to roll
up
hill. This was figured out years ago.
You might possibly know what you are saying. Nobody else does.
Franz
[/quote:87de5b0701]
land elevation
----- hill
------- _ ** *
---------- ** * **
---------
---------
It looks like you're going up hill, but really you are going to lower land
elevation.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mu-Pi |
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 6:19 am |
|
|
|
|
"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031227055347.26263.00001764@mb-m06.aol.com...
[quote:5db5374f7a]"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031226235724.21586.00000991@mb-m23.aol.com...
[snip]
Nope, you are incorrect like usual again. One can actually roll up
hill.
How? The sea level or elevation level of the land is actually lower
than
the
appearance of the up hill movement, which allows a car to appear to
roll
up
hill. This was figured out years ago.
You might possibly know what you are saying. Nobody else does.
Franz
land elevation
----- hill
------- _ ** *
---------- ** * **
---------
---------
It looks like you're going up hill, but really you are going to lower
land
elevation.
[/quote:5db5374f7a]
*sigh* You are an idiot.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| S. Enterprize Company |
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:25 pm |
|
|
|
|
[quote:470e9411c7]"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031227055347.26263.00001764@mb-m06.aol.com...
"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031226235724.21586.00000991@mb-m23.aol.com...
[snip]
Nope, you are incorrect like usual again. One can actually roll up
hill.
How? The sea level or elevation level of the land is actually lower
than
the
appearance of the up hill movement, which allows a car to appear to
roll
up
hill. This was figured out years ago.
You might possibly know what you are saying. Nobody else does.
Franz
land elevation
----- hill
------- _ ** *
---------- ** * **
---------
---------
It looks like you're going up hill, but really you are going to lower
land
elevation.
*sigh* You are an idiot.
[/quote:470e9411c7]
They determined the cause of this years ago. I am even telling what they
said. Good Grief!
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
