Anti-Gravity Research Confirmed 271
Anotherone was among a large number of people over the last few days who've written in about research that BAe seems to be funding on Project Greenglow, an anti-gravity project.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Anti-Gravity Research Confirmed
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Who cares if it doesn't do anything? It was made with our new Triple-Iso-Bifurcated-Krypton-Gate-MOS process ..."
work for BAE SYSTEMS (Score:1)
I guess there go our sock options and profit sharing (we have an EXCELLENT plan)!
Enjoy and have good laugh!
you mean we've been sending people into space... (Score:1)
Re:Cold War Telepathy Experiments (Score:1)
Re:You wouldn't be so impressed if you studied. (Score:1)
is it... (Score:1)
I've had that book on my "to read" list for quite some time, I'll have to get around to it soon(even though I don't understand a lot of that complex physics stuff)
Re:Can you handle the truth? (Score:1)
Well.....sort of. I mean, you could, if you didn't care that when you got back to Earth your family and friends would all be dead. The great thing about a warp drive is that you wouldn't have to have such a large gap in time between you and the rest of humanity.
Re:Ok, who here first thought... (Score:1)
Pure vs. applied research. (Score:1)
When you fund research with particular applications in mind, these application better lay within the current laws of physics. If you are doing pure research, challenging the laws of physics, the applications are unpredictable.
perpetual motion machine (Score:1)
If you can turn off gravity, you could raise a weight expending no energy, turn off the anti-gravity and let the falling weight turn a generator. Repeat this in an endless cycle and you have all the energy you want for free.
Too bad that it violates the law of conservation of energy.
There is, however, no law of conservation of the number of fools.
There are no fundamental laws of physics... (Score:1)
To use the standard example, you may have a scientific theory that says that all swans are white. This is impossible to prove since you would have to examine an infinite number of swans. However it is possible to disprove it, all you need to find is a single swan that isn't white.
Remember - scientists used to believe in phlostigon. This belief led to all sorts of anomalies, including the idea of negative mass. An unthinking belief in scientific "laws" shows a very poor understanding of the basis of science.
Beware: pseudo science! (Score:1)
Angular momemntum is just a convienent way to represent the constantly-changing linear momentum of all the particles in the top. If the forces holding the top together were to suddenly fail so that it turned into particles, they would all travel in straight lines outward in their current linear momentum, none of the particles would have any "memory" of some angular momentum.
A clockwise spinning top will precess in exactly the same way (except mirrored) as a counter-clockwise spinning top. There is nothing different. If we used a "left hand rule math" we would get the *SAME* precession (no, it would NOT go in the opposite direction unless the top was also going in the opposite direction).
Psueudo-science is often based on taking some technical shortcut term and pretending it is literal.
Re:Blind faith in science.... (Score:1)
You did not read right. The claim was that anything ABOVE the disk lost 2% weight, not the disk itself.
Furthermore: the idea is not so crazy. If there is a unified grand theory, and gravity, electroweak, weak and strong nuclear forces can be traced back to any fundamental force, that means there is some connection between gravity and electromagnetism. If there isn't such a connection, there cannot be a GUT.
So, looking into more exotic an less understood stuff like effects of superconductivity might bring surprises like Podkletnovs experiments.
Now it would be wonderful if using some setup with superconductors, spinning or otherwise, could supress inertia, or mass, or gravity or whatever.
Since the reason there IS gravity, and mass, is not understood (it just IS) and why objects are in one place and not suddenly somewhere else. And nobody really knows what exactly IS movement, and kinetic energy, and what really happens with matter if it moves and its kinetic energy is transformed in another kind of energy. Is a particle of matter really some kind of knot in the topology of time and space? Since particle have mass, do they have a Schwarzschild radius, and do they have some kind of quantum black hole inside? Are they constantly tunneling through their own quantum black hole maybe: a topological entity of some kind?
I work at a theoretical physics dept. not as a physicist but as a sysadmin and astronomy student, but I never, with all the math and physics have learned, heard a single answer to those questions, not even to the one of WHY THINGS CAN MOVE...
It really is mind-boggling if you start thinking about it.
-----------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just smells funny...
The scientific method (Score:1)
"However, most scientists believe that such anti-gravity research is fundamentally flawed. It goes against what we know about the physical Universe and is therefore impossible, they say."
These would probably be the spiritual descendants of the "scientists" who claimed that traveling at greater than 60 MPH would cause the blood to boil and was therefore impossible. It's also incredibly arrogant to claim that something that would contradict existing science is impossible; it's tantamount to claiming that we already know all that can be known, in which case science can just pack it in, we don't need you guys any more, don't forget your hat.
Sagan has noted several times that the "old guard" often hampers progress in science. It threatens the importance of their own discoveries. Nobody wants his carefully-researched theory noted in textbooks as "a useful first approximation" or to carry, even if only in his own head, the stigma of your life's work being derived from "second-class" measurements.
One great example is chaos theory. Nobody wanted to admit that a perfectly spherical world with constant illumination and rotation could generate weather. It totally went against what we knew of physics. When it was found that the divergences resulted from rounding effects of the computer simulation a lot of scientists wanted to just dismiss the whole thing right there as "experimental error", instead of admitting that microscopic errors having macro-scale results represented a new fundamental truth about the world.
See also the Henrietta Lacks debacle, where a concerted effort was made by researchers and the journals they published in to save face by trying to cover up the fact that their results were contaminated.
And see also Velikovsky. In the 60s and 70s, his Worlds in Collision was hotly debated and a lot of scientists, rather than actually refute his conclusions, preferred to take the lazy route of trying to suppress publication of his ideas. Slashdotters know how futile that can be.
Re:It must be real ! (Score:1)
Not Found
The requested URL / was not found on this server.
Apache/1.3.9 Server at www.greenglow.co.uk Port 80
Perhaps a joke about "them" blocking access to information about esoteric technology was a bit obvious, but with the site unavailable, I don't think it was totally uncalled for.
Re:Uh...yeah. (Score:1)
They might break the law of gravity- (Score:1)
The site is down.
Re:Whatever happened to... (Score:1)
It exerts a powerful attractive force between the experimentor and the subject.
Re:Whatever happened to... (Score:2)
* Yes, I am perfectly aware that this falls apart for value=1. the probablility is more likely e**-v.
RFC: Gravity and Magnetism are related. (Score:2)
Gravity, in my understanding, is the attraction of one mass for another.
Magnetism is the concentrated lines of electron force that either attracts or repels like forces based on orientation of charge.
Gravity and Magnetism have like qualities:
North and South poles or orientation of charges.
Lines of force that interact with other lines of force.
Conclusion:
Gravity and Magnetism are related.
I've heard more than one scientist say that the two are completely different things... I'm not so sure they are.
Its just paint (Score:2)
(ap) Sherwin-Winniams has announced a new paint that when electrified resists gravity.
So said cheif researcher, who prefered to go by bluGill. He went on to remark how similear this appeared at to quantum mechancis at first.
Going back to the drawing board they decided to try something too obvious to start with: instead of a single static charge they applied a continious charge. Since the paint was always being activated it could not shut off without warning.
This paint would have been released years ago, but the first large test failed. They intended to levitate a sphere with humans in 100 feet off the gound (not exactly but they figgured they could get close), but the switching mechanism jamed when the stresses changed between grav and anti-grav areas.
Fortunatly with anti-grave so cheap we had put an entire hydrophonic garden onboard. Those onboard claim that they went as far as Mars, but our estimates of the speed they obtained suggest they only rose to the moon.
This paint is sure to bring out a new ear of space travel. Since mass is not an issue and the paint is cheep a backyard builder can build an inter-planity explorer in their backyard. The possibilities are endless.
Was I the only one who thought of Danny Dunn when I saw this story?
Cold War Telepathy Experiments (Score:2)
And the fact that nobody was ever able to get it to work served an important purpose - it demonstrated that "telepathy" as the psudo-scientists know it, is bunk.
A negative result is often just as important as a positive one. I think it's unlikely that BAe will have much success, but I think that it's good that they try, and that they document their failures.
Far, far better that they try and fail, than never try at all.
Re:Whatever happened to... (Score:2)
Try as I might, I am unable to reproduce the result. Cats are quite flexable, and both of mine like bread. They keep eating the apparatus.
The laws of physics (Score:2)
Instead of reasearching cool gadgets that violates the basic laws of physics, reasearch the basic laws of physics, and be happy with whatever cool gadgets the new understanding of physics may make possible.
Fact about Einstein's theories. (Score:2)
Einstein was a genius, not God, and came up with theories of relativity. NOT FACTS.
Theories are NOT facts until proven so in rigorous experimentation. He was brilliant-but not perfect, and it may be a long time before we prove just how brilliant, or perfect, he was. Please don't discount others' theories just because they don't go along with Einstein's theories. He didn't invent or create the rules of the universe--just theorized about them.
I take this back if you can prove Einstein's Godlike powers. :^)
Kookster Heaven (Score:2)
What about thiotimoline? (Score:2)
All work has been abandoned since the 1948 on the amazing endochronic properties of resublimated thiotimoline [compuserve.com]. Why? Why does the DoD repeatedly kill any attempt to figure how resublimated Thiotimoline seems to dissolve BEFORE it is actually put in a solvant? Are the risks too high? Do they have something to hide?
Brittons? (Score:2)
Cool.... (Score:2)
Amusingly (Score:2)
The progress of science depends upon torture-testing our best current theories, and then attempting to figure out WTF went wrong when the theory starts to break down. You cannot effectively torture test the theory if you don't understand it!
The progress of technology lies in finding practical applications of our current understanding of science.
Regards,
Ben
Not entirely true (Score:2)
He sticks to current science for his wonders, but manages to design things that are unbelievable but could potentially happen given our current knowledge of science. One of them is an immobile device that creates a stationary region of low gravity.
Cheers,
Ben
Re:Are you saying Newton was right??? (Score:2)
Which one breaks?
1) inertia -- Einstein didn't do away with inertia.
2) F=ma -- This is the *core* of much of Einstein's work. This relationship still applies. As you get closer to the speed of light, m increases in value. That was Einstein's contribution. The formula is still 100% valid.
3) equal and opposite reaction --- are you arguing that rocketry doesn't work anymore?
Go away with this nonsense about Newton being wrong. He was right, and his theories were *expanded* upon by Einstein. If you claim that his theory was replaced by relativity, you are mistaken.
Re:Sometimes they are just cranks...however funded (Score:2)
The other important thing to remember is that a lot of electromagnetism discoveries we take for granted were made by people chasing "crackpot" ideas and finding something real. Who knows what kind of neat phenomena one might find by spinning a superconductor?
To say ahead of time that there's nothing to find is the same flavor of hubris that led late 19th century physicists to declare that there was nothing left to discover. ("Now if only that poxy git Michelson would shut up about his interferometer...")
Misquote (Score:2)
--
matter and antimatter both have positive mass (Score:2)
Alas, no.
Antimatter has positive mass, and is gravitationally attractive the same way normal matter is. For example, while a positron and electron have opposite charges and will annihilate one another upon contact, they both exhibit positive gratitational attraction to one another, proportional to their mass.
Still, this doesn't mean antigravity is dead. Who knows what we'll be able to do in 50 or 100 years, if we should learn how to strum superstrings in 11 dimensions
I was going to suggest an excellent book on the subject of superstring theory and how it relates to quantum physics and relativity, but alas, the book is at home and for some reason I can't recall the exact title. It is an outstanding, non-mathematical explaination of these theories, what they imply, and what questions they do (and do not) answer. Email me if you're interested and I'll try and dig it up.
Yes (Score:2)
Yes, it is. An excellent book - I just finished reading it last night (and made a note of the title and author to post this morning, but you beat me to it.
Re:I'm an optimist (Score:2)
Just because it's an idea that seems thinkable doesn't make it possible. No matter how much time mankind is allowed to gather knowledge.
I hope that sheds a little light on how things work in the real world. Any other questions?
Bad Mojo
Re:Uh...yeah. (Score:2)
You mean like fire? Um, no, I guess not.
Actually, there are lots of advances that were effectively engineering advances first ("This happens when we do that. We don't know why yet, but we can certainly use the effect if we include a fudge factor to compensate for our ignorance of the details.") And then the physics eventually gets worked out.
I don't know whether this idea is silly or not. I don't understand gravity theory well enough to have a meaningful guess (and admitting that puts me ahead of most of you wags who think you do).
It sounds like -- from what little reaction has been quoted, FWIW -- at least some physicists think it's very very unlikely. Their guesses about this are better than mine by several orders of magnitude, but they could still be wrong. From the sounds of it, it seems like a lot of physicists would have to be wrong about a lot of things, which is not impossible, though it is unlikely.
The real question, I think, is how does one properly judge what resources (money, attention, &etc) should be allocated (and by whom) to what lines of inquiry? How does one do that in a way that achieves the most useful balance between safe, plodding lines of exploration and unlikely but potentially literally revolutionary lines of exploration? (And those things are not the simple dichotomy that they are often presented as.)
Re:Two problems (Score:2)
[shrug] It's still a counter-example to your rather odd claim that "new technology almost invariably comes only after the underlying physics has been well worked out." I mean, I thought you were joking at first.
Engineering innovations like fire were not elusive. They provided a glaring gaping hole in the current understanding of the world. More importantly, they were readily reproducible.
For obvious reasons, any "holes" that still exist are probably smaller, and it logically follows that it may be harder to tell whether a "hole" exists or not, whether something is reproducible or not.
There's a big difference between "we have an effect that violates our notion of the universe, so let's revise our notion" and "we want to find an effect that, while it violates our notion of the universe and while it hasn't yet been discovered, it would be really neat if we could find it".
That's true. And they think they may have the former.
Beware! (Score:2)
Beware the scientist who refuses to accept the possibility of something based on the fact that it is not known. Such people have lost their soul. They have lost their sense of wonder at the miracles of the Universe. They have lost their drive to discover new things.
All great advances come from people who challenge, question and subvert "what we know about the physical Universe". If it wasn't for them we'd still be living in the 'fertile crescent', eating berries and rodents. We would have never gone to the moon, gone to the air, gone to the Western Hemisphere, made tools or intentionally lit a fire.
"Here there be Dragons!" "The world is flat!" "Heavier-than-air craft will never fly!"
Such thinking makes me question the existence of intelligent life on Earth... 'It goes against what we believe to be true, therefore it's impossible'. What a depressing and embarassing attitude for a 'scientist' to have... Pity.
Anti-gravity may not pan out. It seems pretty far fetched. But wouldn't it be wonderous if it worked?? Same with super-luminar velocity travel. Yeah, it's impossible given what we know. Maybe we just need to learn a little more, that's all.
Mirror of Greenlow website (Score:2)
I'd share what it said... namely very little.
Welcome to Project Greenglow
[Logo] [ydot]What is Project GREENGLOW? [greenglow.co.uk]
[ydot]Future plans for the Greenglow web site [greenglow.co.uk]
One of the aims of this site is to build an index of links to other related
Gravitational Physics based resources available on the Web. Please email us
the address of sites you think should be on our list.
Send comments or suggestions on this site or the Project's aims to
webmaster@greenglow.co.uk
Related Subject Links
NASA.. Break Through Propulsion Physics [nasa.gov]
Quantum Cavorite [inetarena.com]
Electrogravity [electrogravity.com]
Last Modified 5th July 1999
__________
Bad logic (Score:2)
Uhrm, didn't anyone ever tell you that the burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the positive claim? As far as I'm concerned, your existence isn't established a priori; the only evidence do I have of it is these pixels on the screen. And I may very well decide that it's not evidence enough; as far as I know, you might as well be a postbot, or the byproduct of a Slashdot bug, or just an all-out hallucination. But I don't do that; I accept your objective existence, because it's the rational decision.
And while we're at it, it's impossible to prove an existential negative; I may spend my entire life looking for pink elephants and find none, and yet I will not have proved that pink elephants don't exist. Same with you. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Re:Computer geek needs physic geek help (Score:2)
Computer geek needs physic geek help (Score:2)
-B
Re:Sometimes they are just cranks...however funded (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes they are just cranks...however funded (Score:2)
Re:Blind faith in science.... (Score:2)
Next, I'll bet you'll tell me that there's no such thing as "left-handed material".
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 476 March 24, 2000 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein
TOPSY TURVY: THE FIRST TRUE "LEFT HANDED" MATERIAL
has been devised by scientists at the University of California at San Diego.
In this medium, light waves are expected to exhibit a reverse Doppler
effect. That is, the light from a source coming toward you would be
reddened and the light from a receding source would be blue shifted. The
UCSD composite material, consisting of an assembly of copper rings and
wires (see figure at www.aip.org/physnews/graphics), should eventually
have important optics and telecommunications applications.
More details here [ucsd.edu].
Finally all us southpaws have a material we can call our own.
--
Yevgeny Podkletnov (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes they are just cranks...however funded (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but these claims not only trip the crackpot alarm, they peg the meter.
If I've misrepresented Orgone Energy or Reich's claims, then I apologize. If it's the research I remember, however, then it's several steps more ridiculous than antigravity or Tesla's tricks, and well deserves its reputation as a crank theory.
Two problems (Score:2)
Engineering innovations like fire didn't violate the current understandings of physics. They occurred in the absence of any theories of physics.
Engineering innovations like fire were not elusive. They provided a glaring gaping hole in the current understanding of the world. More importantly, they were readily reproducible.
There's a big difference between "we have an effect that violates our notion of the universe, so let's revise our notion" and "we want to find an effect that, while it violates our notion of the universe and while it hasn't yet been discovered, it would be really neat if we could find it".
Clarification, not just antigravity (Score:2)
This includes antigravity thrusters but also a lot more things (most of which are phenomena we don't currently understand very well, yet).
Some of the things this involves are warp drives, magnetic levitation (MagLev at Boeing, which is propellentless, but not massless), and a lot of other really weird concepts I can't explain well.
My friend was a research assistant on one of these projects, and the best he could explain one of these weird phenomena was that if you induce a current in a bar made of a special material, it will shoot in an axial direction from some unknown force (no, not the simple right-hand rule of electricity and magnetism).
I can't explain it, but he said the military is already using it as a massless thruster on their spy satellites to move through orbits very quickly and efficiently.
Re:ARRGH Will you people research before preaching (Score:2)
Okay, well then ARRGH right back at you. "Popular Science" is hardly a respected, peer-reviewed, scientific journal. Just because you read something in "Popular Science" does not mean that the rest of the scientific community does not think that the authors are crackpots.
If you had read what I wrote, you'd see that the "peer reviewed, respected article" was listed as a reference in the article, and it's a hell of a lot easier to find on the Popular Science article. Why are you attacking me instead of reading my point? Are you bitter at the world? Do you dismiss everything so quickly? If it's in a "Popular" magazine, it must be wrong! *sarcasm*
Perhaps you should actually read the article which another gracious author has listed, and is the one I alluded to, and you so obviously missed in your quick, witty response:
"in 1990, a senior scientist at the University of Alabama named Douglas Torr started writing papers with a Chinese woman physicist named Ning Li, predicting that superconductors could affect the force of gravity. This was before Eugene Podkletnov made his observations in Tampere, so naturally Li and Torr were delighted when they heard that Podkletnov had accidentally validated their predictions."
The results in the cold fusion experiments were not just the lackluster 1% numbers, either. There aren't too many people here that have extensively researched this topic, because I would have expected someone to note that when working with palladium and hydrogen + power, it is possible to get a nice, old-fashioned BANGO - and this may have been what happened.
You are a sterling example of what I am trying to fight against; You didn't look at any of the points I made; You attacked me personally, without looking at the material that was referenced; And you brought in claims for another device, and attempted to lump anyone who was interested in (NOTE: not convienced, just INTERESTED in) with the people that were dupes in a scam.
Please. You didn't even ask me what I thought! I'll believe these claims when I see something. Until then, nobody, nobody here on /. knows enough about the story to make any kind of informed opinion.
Kudos!
Re:Can you handle the truth? (Score:2)
Yes I know we can't use antigravity for anything useful because it takes just as much energy to create as it is useful, but wouldn't the existence of antimatter lay ground for the existence of antigravity? Or is what we think of as "antimatter" and "antigravity" just results of mathematical formulas, instead of actual physical phenomena (i.e., we call it "antimatter" simply because it is "the thing that annihilates matter").
Re:Use of anti-gravity: beyond our current science (Score:2)
Can Rob or CmdrTaco or someone check into the moderation on this guy?! I know the moderators' tastes are not this consistently bad. It seems like every post slashdot-terminal makes is moderated up to 3 or more, and most are obvious and/or crap.
There must be something hinky going on with his moderation.
I have my threshhold set to +2 for a reason!
Gravitons? (Score:2)
Assuming that there IS a particle or wave that transmits gravity, then it is possible there is a way to focus or deflect those particles/waves that costs less than the cost of opposing them. Given this is a possibility (even a remote one) than an industry focussed massively on opposing gravity (as airplanes do, I would say) would be better off throwing away a little research money than risking being on the outside if it *is* discovered, and undercut by competitors that made the gamble. If the research proves that antigravity isn't possible with the technology of today (or that it costs more than just letting it take effect and opposing it with a motor) then that too is valuable data - that there won't pop up "antigrav airways" able to work out of a car lot and undercut your fares to the point you would be making a loss.......
--
Re:Blind faith in science.... (Score:2)
It's easy to make an error if you don't do a carefully controled experiment, maybe the superconducting disc was repelled by the magnetic field of a motor when it was switched on to start the disc spinning, voila the whole phenomenon is traced to a well known effect.
Probably most people still remember 'cold fusion'. Staying sceptical now will probably spare much embarassement later. And most physicists have good reasons for dismissing the idea of antigravity:
- gravity is a very weak force, the only reason its so 'strong' here is that big ball of mud below our feet. Achieving an effect as large as 2% of the weight of that disc is quite a feat if done by 'gravitation effects' it's by far more probable to stem from electromagnetic effects, especially in an experiment with rotating superconductors.
- it seems reasonable that someone could think up some kind of perpetuum mobile using antigravity, this is normaly considered a strong indicator that something is fishy
- gravity is not 'just' a force, it's intimately connected to spacetime, anyone who heard about black holes will know that much. Antigravity would probably upset some well established (by experiments) concepts here, maybe there's a theoretical way to get around the light barrier using it, which would mean time machines.
As much as i like science fiction i think perpetuum mobiles or time machines just won't happen in the real world.
Re:Not all new technology (Score:2)
Re:Not all new technology (Score:2)
Hardly. It is more like avoiding spending money on a perpetual motion machine until you've either got reproducable results or a modification to the laws of thermodynamics that make some sort of sense. And obviously any scientist would demand a lot of reproducability of there were no theory behind it.
Doing anything other than maybe trying to reproduce it once is not a "good investment". It is a horrid investment because the chance of this being anything is basically nil. It is not like, say, transisters, where what they were doing was well understood by the time they moved from theory to practice.
Re:Not all new technology (Score:2)
Exactly. And it would have been idiotic for someone to form a company to build a magnetic disk storage device in 1901.
Again, I'm not saying that no one should try and reproduce this experiment. What I am saying is that it is silly to pretend that we are at the stage where we can even consider building a technology out of it when all we have is one guy who says he did something.
(I'm also saying that it is extremely unlikely anyone will reproduce this, but that's another issue.)
The reason I keep bringing up perpetual motion is that you really don't have any reason why this should be investigated (rather than some other area of physics) other than one guy claiming it works. That is almost identical to the argument 19th century cranks used to give for their perptual motion machines. Given that it contradicts all modern theories of gravitation, there needs to be more than one guy's claim before any real money is spent. Try to reproduce it, sure, but anything beyond that at this stage is a waste.
Saying "our understanding of gravity is primitive" is a cop-out. This seems to excuse any claim that has anything to do with gravity. We certainly do have theories of gravity running around, and this seems to contradict all of them. This contradiction demands a little more evidence than one guy's as-yet unrepeated experiment.
Show a repetition of the experiment. Then start worrying about what to build with it.
Re:Blind faith in science.... (Score:2)
To me the small effect this guy found (~2%) is a real good indication that it doesn't mean much. Sounds to me like the guy isn't properly paying attention to errors in his data.
simple physics (Score:2)
In eletro-magnetism, motion of an electric charge produces a magnetic field in the perpendicular direction according the the right hand rule ( make the index finger of your right hand follow the direction of the positive charge and your thumb points into the direction of positive magnetic force ). If you have circular electric motion, then you'll have a circular magnetic field ( and that's how you get permanent magnets ).
Likewise with angular momentum.. Moving an object in a circle produces a perpendicular force ( again following the right hand rule ). They demonstrate it in physics class when they take a bike wheel and balance it on a string after spinning it. The bicycle effect is where the angular momentum produces a sort of virtual mass that fights changes in momentum. It's inertial frame cxauses it to tend to be stationary in space. That is why the bike doesn't fall down at high speeds; leaning to either side would require fighting the inertial frame. This is how gyroscopes work as well. Additionally, they demonstrate the right-hand-rule when they show which direction the balanced tire rotates about the balancing string.
Back in the early 90's I saw a guy build a gyroscopic contraption that spun very rapidly. He balanced it on a string with a counter weight and scale. He weighted the contraption while it was stationary, and then again while it was rotating. The rotation caused it to seem lighter. What is happening is that the perpendicular force was oriented in such a way that it was against gravity. What I believe is not that the device was levitating, but that it was resisting motion against it's angular momentum; e.g. In order to weight the object, it would had to sink.
In this particular experiment only a tiny distinction in weight was measured. Potentially, higher rotational velocities would measure greater distinctions.
Now we're looking at hovering superconductors.. Little or no resistence in the rotation, perfectly balanced. There is little reason to believe that the measurable "weight" of the object would not also seem to be less when rotating. I suspect that if they follow the simple diagrams that we learned in physics that show various shapes and their associated angular momentum, then they'll find ways of making the object weigh even less. For example, an infinitely thin cylinder with a large diameter will have the greatest possible angular momentum ( since all of it's mass will be rotating maximally ). Thus if they took a dense hollow cylinder and managed to make it spin on it's axis ( by virtue of super-conducting properties ), they'll find a great reduction in measurable 'weight'.
Note: I use weight instead of mass even though they are really the same thing just to further my point that they aren't messing with mass, but a measurable net force.
In the general theory of relativity, Einstein says that there is no real gravity, but merely a referential frame of acceleration. He goes on about the curvature of space being the real driving force, but the important concept is that all that we can perceive is the relative net force between two systems. There is no difference between saying that a space ship is defying gravity than if the space ship is imposing a larger, opposing force, than gravity. Observably, the net force is upward. Likewise centripetal force may oppose or simply resist gravitational force and thereby reduce it's effects.. It is not violating any known laws.
Since I believe we are dealing with a resistence to gravitation, and not a pure force that can oppose gravitation, we could never achieve a negative gravitational affect ( just like breaks on a car can never directly cause you to go backwards ). Thus if you want to make your air-plane or space ship lighter for better fuel efficiency, then you're going to have to have the cargo bay spin around very quickly, which might not be a generally desirable thing. An additional problem would occur if you went crazy and spun the device around at a speed approaching c. At this point, you'll have temporal deviations, and additionally, the object will gain mass ( as the energy of the system increases ( kinetic in this case ), so does it's relative mass ). In Practical terms, you'll wind up expending more energy accelerating the object angularly, than you will lifting it.
Now I didn't pay too much attention in class when we initially talked about angular momentum, so I might be wrong.. There may very well be an actual force, and we might be able to harness it like those UFO's we see depicted with spinning discs. But since the crew and cargo are very unlikely to want to endure 50Gs of angular force, your ship's spnning disk is going to have to produce a whole hell of a lot of force to lift not only it's own mass, but that of the entire ship.
In short, I have seen nothing here that suggests anti-gravity. Merely some experimentations that play with weaker forces that are less intuative to our everyday life style.
-Michael
Re:Blind faith in science.... (Score:2)
There are many seemingly ridiculous things that are accepted by fact in modern physics. For example, a vacuum is actually a continually fluctuating mass of particles and anti-particles that travel backwards in time and annhilate themselves before they were created. What???
General relativity ("go fast, get heavy") is pretty ridiculous on the surface.
These things are accepted by the general scientific community. Why is it too ridiculous that a spinning super conducter might have some affect on the gravititonal force. As I understand it gravity is actually the least understood of all the four fundamental forces, for example has anyone detected a gravity particle or a gravity wave yet?
Study helps here too. (Score:2)
When you come down to it, there is no substitute for knowing the standard model [slashdot.org].
--
Maybe that's what YOU think research is about (Score:2)
All of these secrets were pried out of nature by people willing to study the knowledge of the day until they knew it forwards, backwards and sideways, and then push it where it was either suspected or proven to be breakable. The goofball intent on proving that UFO's are real and that vibrating machines can move themselves through space without propellant (the Dean Drive) can beat their heads against their walls for a lifetime; their chances of actually uncovering something new (as opposed to experimental error) are comparable to a fart in a hurricane.
--
This is ull that I have to say (Score:2)
Main Entry: ullage
: the amount that a container (as a tank or cask) lacks of being full
Pronunciation: '&-lij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ulage, from Middle French eullage act of filling a cask, from eullier to fill a cask, from Old French ouil eye, bunghole, from Latin oculus eye -- more at EYE [slashdot.org]
Date: 15th century
This isn't terribly informative. In rocket-speak, an "ullage burn" is what you do to get all your propellants down to the BOTTOM of the tank, where the outlet is. Trying to run a turbopump on oxygen gas doesn't work very well. If you can put the liquid where you want it using a magnet, you may save some complexity.
--
What are their REAL Development Tools? (Score:2)
Particles and anti-particles. Gravitons? (Score:2)
This is a layman's view of an agreeably complicated thing. According to some theories all forces have to have transmitting particles. Gravity is a force there as any other but insofar there are disputes whether gravitons (particles transmitting [the effect of] gravity) even exist - not to mention actually someone having discovered them.
We know from experience and several tests that basic particles have their anti-equivalents. If this indeed is a universal fact and gravitons actually exist, why wouldn't there be anti-gravitons as well?
When particle and anti-particle collide, they annihilate each other - so it would be theoretically possible to destroy gravitons with their counterparts and hence deprive an object from the effect of gravity. And YES, I know I will get flamed for this kind of herecy. Even if this was ever actually possible, it would require unbelievable advances in nuclear and particle physics, and that in areas who are not far from fantasy or imagination. Not to mention the shielding required to withstand the enormous energies that are unleashed with particle annihilation.
While personally I don't believe Project Greenglow has any chance of success, at least they're doing some valuable research on gravity, and possibly even on Einstein's gravity waves. And IIRC, even those are yet to discover.
April 1st in the UK? (Score:2)
Re:Whatever happened to... (Score:2)
Replacing the cat with a penguin would work if it wasnt for the sad fact that penguins don't fly. (as they suffer from the extra weight of FUDium)
An alternate explanation is that the cat (being subject to such an experiment) was also toast.
YOU'RE ALL WRONG! (Score:2)
I haven't even read the article, but I can immediately tell you that EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS TOTALLY WRONG!
Before you moderate this simultaneously Idiodic and ROTFL, I desire to back up my claim (though as you'll see, my PROOF IS WRONG ALSO! WHAT A TOUGH WORLD THIS IS!):
Consider this situation: you are talking about reality. (If you need help understanding this concept, simply reread the last sentence.) (Contradiction -- think about it after reading the below.) You so happen to have the intuition that this -- we'll call it meta-reality -- is really the same thing as reality. You have some sort of a logical mind, which for some extremely strange reason attempts to prove that meta-reality == reality. But to do this, it is necessary to use both meta-reality (contradiction -- think about it) when considering reality, and meta-meta-reality to consider meta-reality. Say that you, using meta-reality and meta-meta-reality, manage to prove that meta-reality == reality (contradiction!). So you have 'meta-reality == reality'. But that previous sentence was in meta-meta-reality, and so was your proof, so it would really be nice if you could prove that meta-meta-reality was really the same stuff as reality, because then you could get rid of all those 'meta's and start making sense again. But to do that you'd need meta-meta-meta-reality, and then meta-meta-meta-meta-reality, and then you'd need
Segmentation fault (core dumped).
Segmentation fault (core dumped).
Segmentation fault (core dumped).
The above beyond any reasonable doubt proves that everything is a figment of our imagination. We just have a meta-imagination guiding the rules of our imagination. Oh no -- here we go again! But at the very lowest level, anything is possible (though I doubt that you'd be there to experience it, considering how everything is segfaulting). Think of it being at the kernel level.
And at the kernel level, nobody cares. Problem solved, but, uh... who's there to be satisfied?
(moderation hints -- this was meant to be insightful, but process 36 Insightfulize segfaulted)
Re:Blind faith in science.... (Score:2)
Real anti-gravity research (if such a thing existed) would try to eliminate the downward force of gravity, not provide one of many possible upward forces.
The subject was already old in '96. (Score:2)
The subject was treated in '92 by some Japanese scientists, and a very interesting paper was published in Physical Review Letters.
No superconductivity, but a very well documented paper, with lots of details. Unfortunately I do not have the exact reference, and '92 is a guess. It was for sure published between '91-93.
Why don't they pay someone who knows what she is talkink about when treating a technical issue? The same question as about the computer-related topics... Probably they hoped that misused keywords as antigravity, hacker, superconductor, and Russian mad scientist will sell their story enough...
Re:Blind faith in muffins.... (Score:2)
http://www.wallydug.demon.co.uk/wallydug/hard_c
James Blish's Spindizzy! (Score:2)
Re:Can you handle the truth? (Score:2)
Well, here I am, another computer geek who doesn't really grok Physics, and I'm going to post. "MrScience" if that's your name, the distinction between "anti-gravity" and "gravitation shielding" is a moot point. In each case, you run up against Einstein and General Relativity. If I understand the gist of GR, it tells us in very strong terms that you cannot shield gravity.
Or to be more precise, you cannot, in a particular region of space, create a local nullification or diminishing of a the gravitational field created by a nearby massive object. To do so would be to interfere with the space's basic ability to sustain matter. In other words, Einstein's definition of gravity in terms of curvature of four-dimensional spacetime does not allow for a nullification effect.
MrScience, if you are proposing that Podkletnov's work implies the necessity for a correction to GR, could you please give us some idea of what that correction might look like?
Before flaming me or calling me clueless, let's get some basic facts straight:
It's strange, that something as simple as why an apple falls to the ground when you let go of it cuts to the heart of the deepest mysteries of the universe. But it does. Deal with it.
Bottom line: We'd all like to defy Gravity and levitate around. We want to solve the strong AI problem and get computers so smart that we can talk to them and they'd understand what we want. We want things like Warp Drive so we can get around Special Relativity and travel to distant stars in reasonable periods of time, and see if they have life-sustaining planets orbiting them. These things are not going to happen soon, and they may never happen at all. If any one of the three things I've mentioned in this paragraph happen in my lifetime I'll be very happy, but I'm not holding my breath.
Hard problems are hard, and Einstein was more of a genius than 99.99% of people understand. Please try to get that. Thanks.
Ok, who here first thought... (Score:2)
Re:Frivolous ? Maybe not (Score:3)
Take a look at the sci.skeptic FAQ [cs.ruu.nl] where all this nonsense is harshly treated. The relevant section of the FAQ is section 8.8 - almost at the bottom of the page.
You can probably find other mirrors of the FAQ.
Re:Blind faith in science.... (Score:3)
Only someone with a really poor understanding of physics would believe the old canard that a gyroscope (even a supercold superconduction gyroscope) would lose weight.
1) mass is important, weight is not. When I am jumping, I also lose ALL of my weight momentarily, but none of my mass. Too bad for the jumping diet program...
2) since the guy is measuring weight, then only a dork would accept the claim and start funding an anti-grav program. Why not fund a maglev program instead? It's a much more likely explanation of what's happening.
3) I don't know if this particular thing is fact right now but Einstein's theories predict that a gyroscope actually gets MORE massive and therefore heavier when it spins really fast. Where's the theoretical work that tries to explain this in light of the dubious experiment?
Methinks you're a bit too credulous. The proper attitude to take is to first be skeptical, giving no benefits of doubt. That's a hell of a fish story the guy is telling, and I want to see that fish for myself.
I am completely justfied in proclaiming at this point that the experiments are CRAP and they should be completely IGNORED. Of course, real evidence would change the situation quite a bit!
Re:Blind faith in science.... (Score:3)
The same goes for vice versa.
The whole point is to eschew assumptions, to identify our assumptions and challenge them. The process shares this feature with the practice of debugging your own code. Without the ability to challenge our assumptions and beliefs, we might as well let theologans and politicians do our science.
That's what research is about (Score:3)
I really love Bob Park - "One can only conclude that at the higher levels of these organisations there are people who don't have a very sound grounding in fundamental physics."
I know that he feels it's a long shot, but how many things have been discovered in the last 100 years that were solidly felt to be impossible. Progress is made by stepping away from your blinders and trying new things, looking in directions that you didn't even comprehend existed.
Just because your only knowledge of me is bits on a screen does not quantifiably prove that I do not exist. I may, I may not, but you can not prove that I do not exist because of a lack of evidence or perception.
chris
Richard Feynman on antigravity (Score:3)
He was explaining the properties of matter (comparing atoms vibrating in a lattice to band members marching in step), when a guy from the audience interrupted and starting asking about antigravity devices.
Feynman, in his typical blunt manner, said something to the effect of, "Fella, what you are talking about is impossible. It violates fundamental principles of physics. What _is_ a great antigravity device is that seat under your butt."
Uh...yeah. (Score:3)
Then, of course, you get a bunch of money types whose eyes are glittering with the thought of all those dollars they'll get "if it works" and are thus blind to the fact that this is almost certainly a crock of shit. Reminds me of all that telepathy research both the US and USSR engaged in during the cold war.
These guys need to look at history. I can't recall a single new technology that appeared like this. New technology almost invariably comes only after the underlying physics has been well worked out. For example, we are only now starting to create technologies using quantum effects, which have been part of standard physics for over half a century.
Re:Use of anti-gravity: beyond our current science (Score:3)
As for gravity shielding, more power to 'em. Skeptics can eat my shorts. Scientific skepticism is often based on logical fallacies, like discrediting scientists (if Adolf Hitler authored the laws of thermodynamics, would they be any less valid?), or claiming the "null hypothesis" - which is a sham! There is no null, relative to hypotheses. If I claim "XYZ" without experimentation or evidence, anyone who claims "not XYZ" without experimentation or evidence is equally unscientific. To those of you who argue there's no evidence gravity shielding is possible: go ahead and prove that it's impossible! I would argue that Podkletnov's experiments ARE evidence in favor of it, until such time as they are debunked.
A prime example of the null hypothesis gone bad: There are a number of people in the US who believe that giving young children the massive multiple innoculations that most of them get these days can lead to autism. There are many cases of autism manifesting shortly after such innoculations. Congress held hearings into this subject, and the Surgeon General and a bunch of medical "experts" sat there and claimed there was no link. Why did they claim this? Simply because NO ONE HAD BOTHERED TO DO ANY SERIOUS RESEARCH ON IT. In other words, to the scientific establishment, not researching something is proof that it doesn't exist.
That kind of "science" reminds me of Douglas Adams' Hideous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, a man-eating carnivore which will not attack you if you have a towel over your head, because if you can't see it, it thinks it can't see you.
Blind faith in science.... (Score:3)
Well sounds like he doesn't have a very good grounding in fundamentals of the scientific method. Repeat after me "the map is not the territory". There are no fundamental laws of physics. The laws of physics are just best fit theorems that happen to fit the available data. As soon as someone demonstrates a reliably reproducible experiment that goes against those laws then those laws have to be revised. Does he honsestly think that we know all of physics and that there is nothing left to learn?
Now I nothing about Dr Yevgeny Podkletnov's experiments, maybe he is a loon, but if no other scientists has tried to reproduce the experiments then you can't just ignore them.
Some things aren't accepted. (Score:3)
You actually described Special Relativity (which also includes "things going fast look slow"); General Relativity is about funny stuff like non-Euclidean space and unaccelerated objects following geodesics in a warped space-time. It's highly counter-intuitive, mostly because our intuition is shaped by experience with a world where velocities are 0.00001% of c, the radius of curvature of space-time is on the order of a light-year, and other conditions where the deviations from a Newtonian model are so small as to be extremely difficult to measure. If we lived on a neutron star (read Dragon's Egg), our physics would have been more sophisticated from the outset.
--
It will be interesting to see what comes of it. (Score:3)
For those with the knee-jerk reaction: "This is garbage. Anybody knows that 99% of crackpot theories are crackpot theories whether suits like them or not." Please look at the other outcomes than a total revolutionary change to how we see physics (although I suppose there is a decent chance that we are due).
The thing to actually look for in this sort of research is what might actually come out of it. Ideally from the funders' point of view, they will get a working antigravity system. Other, more probable outcomes are greatly enhanced knowledge about existing gravity repulsion techniques. Research like this often leads to side applications that affect people's everyday lives in vastly different ways than was ever thought of in the research. I can't remember what plastic was originally intended to be used for, but I don't think they intended to use it for darn near everything like it is used today. Similarly, how many experiments for space technology are better known for their applications on Earth? Let's wait and see what actually comes out of this research before we declare it useless or make plans for designing our new hovercars.
Note: Since it is military research, there is always a probability of a long delay before it hits the private sector, whatever the results are.
B. Elgin
Re:Use of anti-gravity: beyond our current science (Score:3)
You're confusing science and engineering, I think. "Science" is basically a method of discovering (or "uncovering") information about the universe; "engineering" is the application of that information for human use. And don't forget that part of NASA's mission is to do the research and low-level work which will enable private industry to apply new technologies too expensive for them to develop from scratch (although NASA sometimes forgets this themselves, it would appear!).
As far as "barely launch[ing] probes properly to Mars," the problem with the last two spacecraft would seem to have been more in the management of the missions, not in the hardware -- even the Polar Lander would have worked if the testing was done properly. This isn't a failure of science, or even of engineering... it's a failure of oversight.
---
Re:Whatever happened to... (Score:4)
The first time, the cat noticably hovered (at least to my biased eyes) for at least a few microseconds, but then the buttered toast slid around to the top of the cat and the cat landed as normal.
I tightened the strap, which lengthed the amount of time the cat hovered but also deepened (if that's a word) the depth of my scratches. However, the effect of the tightening quickly approached an asymtoptic maximum that had to be at least 3 or 4 milliseconds of "hover time" (again, to my biased eyes).
Unfortunately, I think the Universe tries to prevent this violation of its laws in much the same way the Universe prevents FTL travel via wormholes as described by Hawking (who proposes that vacuum fluctuations will shut down any wormhole that might violate causality)... further tightening of the strap... well... we gave the cat a nice burial, thank goodness the ASPCA wasn't there. The universe was brutal to that poor little cat... I can still hear his screams in my dreams at night...
I'm an optimist (Score:4)
At the time, there were things they didn't know about the universe. Knowing those things makes all the difference.
When I was in highschool, they took us to the University physics labs, and a professor took a petri dish with a checker-sized magnet in it, then placed a small cylindrical semi-conductor on top of the magnet. Then, she poured liquid nitrogen into the petri dish, and the semi-conductor levitated, and floated where it was.
After seeing that, I don't think I'll ever be able to say something is impossible again. I hope they have fun trying.
ARRGH Will you people research before preaching! (Score:4)
ARRRGH!!!
There, now that's out of my system. The experiments done on superconductors are not being done by people that are white-haired mad scientists. There are even a number of _published_ theories from respected scientists as to how a gravity shielding effect might be demonstrated - and they were even done before the superconducting magnet experiment.
I'm not at home, so I can't get the references offhand, but I know several of them appeared in an issue of Popular Science in 1998 or 1999. This research is ongoing.
People that pronounce "that's wrong because" REALLY piss me off. That's not the scientific method. You make a theory to explain some effect - then design an experiment to prove or disprove this theory. You don't just proclaim all people that are researching said theory are crackpots. IMHO, that makes _you_ sound like an ignorant fool. It would make much more sense to question their theory and wait for an intellligent answer!
It is safe to assume that for any major company to make any kind of announcement like this, and get lots of funding, something was demonstrated to someone somewhere. But, NOBODY HERE KNOWS, so why assume that people who have spent their lives researching topics you're to lazy to properly even get definitions for correct are crazy?
And for the cold fusion people, FOR THE RECORD, there have been many reproductions of the experiment, and something does seem to happen. Unfortunately, it's not prediictable or sustainable. The unfortunate attitudes of the public at large and misinformed and ignorant media have effectively killed research into these areas - because you must be crazy to question the status quo.
Think before you speak, people. The scientific method is not about passing judgement, and there just isn't enough infomation here to go one way or the other.
Kudos!
Re:Not all new technology (Score:4)
We don't have a theory here, remember. What we have is one wierd result that has not yet been replicated. Try and replicate it perhaps, but spend real money on it? That's idiocy.
There is a difference between understanding the side-effects of a technology ("Why does cold pizza taste good?") and understanding the basis for a technology ("how do you cook a pizza?"). If you wanted to use these results to explain some other odd results somewhere else, yeah, that might make sense. But to say "We're gonna build us an anti-gravity machine" at this stage is pure idiocy.
This isn't about scientific conservatism. This is about demanding proof, and reproducability. Unfortunately, with the press the way it is and with moneyed fools too eager to jump in, we seem to get fooled a lot lately. But I suppose it is more fun dreaming of instant free energy than worrying about boring theory.
Whatever happened to... (Score:4)
NASA's effort (Score:4)
I like the one on quantum vacuum energy. That's a prediction of standard quantum electrodynamics, and historically, QED is always right, even when it makes wierd predictions. Every time standard quantum theory predicted something wierd, experimental work found the theory correct, and things like quantum cryptography and quantum computing emerged.
Also, remember that we still don't understand gravity at the quantum level. Some of the NASA work involves experiments which might provide some added insight in that area. One clear, reproducible non-Newtonian result in the quantum gravity area would provide direction for the gravity theorists, who currently are mostly using what vague data can be gleaned from cosmology.
Maybe, but not that way (Score:5)
It might be that true anti-gravity one day may be possible, although nothing currently indicate it, but if so it will be because of breakthrough in basic science, not because of any project with an anti-gravity gadget as its goal.
Re:Sometimes they are just cranks...however funded (Score:5)
failures and cranks: phrenology, mediums as masters of the fourth dimension, any number of numerological schemes, orgone energy
Ouch. Orgone energy does not, IMHO, deserve to be put in that lineup. Especially here on
Granted, this is a poor argument for orgone energy, but it is my understanding that very few have recreated Reich's experiments before declaring him a crank or a failure. Peer review wasn't possible because nobody would take the time to hear him out. The same thing has happened in gravity research in the past (the exact reference eludes me) and we have adequate reason be concerned that the scientific community may be too ready to cry 'crank'.
For more information (including an interesting discussion about arguments), read this excerpt from Wilhelm Reich in Hell [rawilson.com] by Robert Anton Wilson [rawilson.com]
Eugine Podkletnov's Paper... (Score:5)
Also, here's a 1998 Wired article [wired.com] that gives a good deal of background about Podkletnov, and why his paper was so badly recieved. It does meander a bit. I'd recommend skipping the boring parts where the writer recounts his visit with some other nut who thought he could duplicate Podkletnov's experiment. It is funny though, and it does show a lot about how a bad scientific method can produce erroneous results.
Enjoy!
---
Epitaph
Better Copy of Eugine Podkletnov's Paper... (Score:5)
It's better to actually read the paper and draw your own conclusions than to simply listen to what other people think about it and accept their views.
---
Epitaph
Re:Frivolous ? Maybe not (Score:5)
These same ideas can be applied to the trip to the moon. What did we directly get from going to the moon? A couple of moon rocks! Was it worth while for just a couple of moon rocks? IMHO, NO! But what we did get was numerous advances in computers and software. We got such things as Teflon and tang and many other things that I cannot think of right now.
Anyway any type of valid research is always more valuable than anyone can measure. Who knows what will come of it or who the research will inspire that will give us concrete results? The value is more than we can afford not to invest in.
You wouldn't be so impressed if you studied. (Score:5)
- Someone providing some money to tinker at the margins, making sure that the "fringe" stuff is experimental error. (This is likely if the people at the top have a clue.)
- Someone convinced that the "fringe" stuff is real, and throwing money at studies to prove as much. (This is likely if the people at the top watch "X Files".)
It'll probably take time for the news media to sort out exactly who's behind this and why, assuming they're interested in actually going in-depth as opposed to a "gosh-wow" news item to play to the UFO cultists. What would be really interesting would be some studies of electron-beam repulsion of incoming supersonic airstreams; anything which can propagate a pressure wave faster than sound (as an electron beam could do) could reduce shockwaves and their consequent drag. I saw something about this once, with a note that the research had been suppressed. Well, it's time to unwrap it.--
Sometimes they are just cranks...however funded. (Score:5)
I know there is a fondness for the underdog, bringing down the close-minded orthodoxy and opening up a brave new dawn, etc, etc, but I would remind everybody that the reason the scientific community is sceptical of far out claims is because most of the time they're right to be. We remember the triumphs of paradigm busting: Gallileo, Mandlebrot, Einstein. For very good reasons we forget the failures and cranks: phrenology, mediums as masters of the fourth dimension, any number of numerological schemes, orgone energy, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Just because part of the military-industrial complex is funding it is no seal of authority either; remember all the reports of the Cold War intelligence services - on both sides - funding psychic distance viewing?
All greenglow has are some unpeer-reviewed reports and some highly criticised publications. Measuring weight reduction of a superconducting spinning disk, especially with the magnitudes of loss suggested, is not a difficult experiment. The fact that theses results have not been duplicated, despite the fact that superconductors are common materials these days in most university physics departments should raise the flag of sceptisism for everybody: Extreme claims require extreme evidence
Can you handle the truth? (Score:5)
What was proposed is not anti-gravity (though astrophysicists are now thinking that this may be a common occurrence). It is gravity shielding. When a correspondent at British Sunday Telegraph received the already-accepted page proofs for the article submitted to the respected Journal of Physics-D, he wrote an article for his newspaper using the word anti-gravity, rather than gravity-shielding.
There was an instant firestorm of ridicule about how anti-gravity was impossible, etc, etc. Podkletnov was let go from his university, his paper was dropped from the journal before it was printed, and he retreated out of the country.
What many people forget is that, "in 1990, a senior scientist at the University of Alabama named Douglas Torr started writing papers with a Chinese woman physicist named Ning Li, predicting that superconductors could affect the force of gravity. This was before Eugene Podkletnov made his observations in Tampere, so naturally Li and Torr were delighted when they heard that Podkletnov had accidentally validated their predictions."
The trick is that Podkletnov was using a very odd combination of materials in his ceramics. This creates an extremely brittle disc that is difficult to spin at high speeds. This guy is an expert in his field, and few have been able to create super-conducting ceramic magnets in this ratio that don't break up at the necessary RPM.
A quick excerpt from the link: True, Podkletnov wasn't a physicist - but he did have a doctorate (in materials science) and he knew how to do careful lab work. When he wrote up his results, his papers were accepted for publication in some sober physics journals, and at least one theoretical physicist - an Italian named Giovanni Modanese - became intrigued. Modanese didn't dismiss the whole idea of gravity shielding, because on the subatomic level, we simply don't know how gravity functions. "What we are lacking today," according to Modanese, "is a knowledge of the microscopic or 'quantum' aspects of gravity, comparable to the good microscopic knowledge we have of electromagnetic or nuclear forces. In this sense, the microscopic origin of the gravitational force is still unknown." At the Max Planck Institute in Munich, he developed a theory to explain the shielding phenomenon.
Oh, and before you go equating this to cold fusion, and saying that it is/was totally bogus, read this [wired.com] article. Read it through to the end, and you will find the interesting results of the experiment, regarding cold fusion.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.