Gravitational Repulsion Effect Claimed 575
TekPolitik writes: "Eugene Podkletnov, the physicist who claimed to have discovered an anomalous gravitational "shielding" effect in the 90s, but withdrew his original paper prior to publication, has finally published a new paper on the topic. The paper describes a new experiment that is related to the original experiment, but the nature of the new experiment is more suggestive of an inverse gravitational effect (that is, the device creates a gravitational push away from it), or in Trekkie terms, a repulsor beam. Aside from claiming to have pushed things around at a distance, Podkletnov claims that the results directly contradict general relativity." Let's see if I can summarize: the author claims that with a certain very cold superconductor transmitting a large quantity of electricity in an intense magnetic field, he has observed a "new" force which repulses objects.
Kids these days - Bah back in my day (Score:2, Funny)
GRAVITY
Why bother? (Score:2)
Does Not Contradict General Relativity (Score:2)
Just a minor point here. The summary says that this directly contradicts relativity. Meanwhile the abstract of the actual article says "cannot be explained in the framework of general relativity." This might seem like a quibble, but it's a pretty important point. General Relativity, like Quantum theory is an incomplete description of the universe. They both work very well a describing the universe, but on differnt scales. The physics community is still searching for the unified field theory to unite the two, or rather supersede them. This observation could be the one that leads to the development of a more complete theory. Or, it could be something else.
Interesting that this is news! (Score:2, Interesting)
History Repeats Itself (Score:3, Interesting)
Why does Slashdot even give crackpots like this a voice? It's typical cold fusion, room temperature super conductors, perpetual motion engine bull shit. It's one guy claiming to have obtained a result that even he admits contradicts general relativity.
That's exactly what they said when Newton proposed the theory of gravitational acceleration (the famous "feather and cannon ball fall at the same rate" experiment) and when Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity. Both of those ideas contradicted conventional thinking, but came to be accepted as some of the most valuable scientific contributions of all time. While you could be right in saying that this is the scientific equivalent of vapourware, it would be worth your while to observe this point. History has told us time and time again that more people spend more time thinking and talking about what they can't do than what they can do.
Sure, sometimes these fantastic paradigm-shifting things happen. But when it's this far fetched, how about waiting for at least a little peer review?
Because peer review often takes time to verify/disprove your research. By that time someone else may have discovered it and you want to make sure your hard work accounts for something. So you publish as soon as you have something concrete. Even if it gets retracted later on (Element 118 [slashdot.org], for example) the point is that you've still asked the questions anyway. You may even inspire further research into the field (for instance, the synthesis of transuranics continues to this day).
And as a final note:
Get into the conversation, log in. Most people don't read AC comments.
Now that, I can agree with.
Yet more criticism (Score:2, Informative)
It's disturbing that the title of the paper mentions a gravitational force, and throughout the author refers to his radiation as a "gravity impulse". This is a premature, biasing assumption, and it makes the entire paper distasteful to read. A gravitational force would be the last thing I would imagine attributing to this effect, which is obviously electromagnetic in origin.
I have no concerns that he somehow set up the experiment "incorrectly". If this is not a hoax, then whatever he did to create the radiation is fine, as long as it's described well enough for others to reproduce. However, his tests of the radiation are biased toward the idea that it's gravitational and not electromagnetic. He does not use antenae and plot the frequency spectrum, for example.
There is no table showing the various materials used, at various distances, and the relative effects of the pulse on them. Because the pulses are not very uniform, many materials should be simultaneously tested. What is the confidence level of the hypothesis that various materials experience the same force, proportional to their mass? He only says that it's true, but doesn't show any data!! This is not even close to science. It's more like wishing real hard. If I were a reviewer of the article, I would ask for much more data to be presented.
Section 4b of the paper is highly flawed. Really, what evidence does he present for the case that this is not garden-variety E-M radiation? He says the force is proportiaonal to mass and mostly independant of material (without showing the data which may be perfectly consistent with other hypotheses). Fine, but the atomic charges are going to be proportional to mass, also, so it could be a high-frequency kind of thing. He should test it on, say, different isotopes of the same element. Or lead vs beryllium, to get a decent range. He says that electromagnetic shielding doesn't attenuate the radiation. Okay, if you say so, but please, what kind of shielding did you try? Did you use a conductor, or mu-metal? How large? How much? To what accuracy did you test this? Magntic fields are extremely penetrating, and a Farraday cage doesn't help. I know, my office is one floor up and one room to the right of an 8 Tesla magnet, and I can't put any computer monitors in the Southern half of my room!
Then in 4b he has some completely lunatic argument that his "new force" is not consistent with GR, because if he extrapolates the effect way beyond the range he has tested, he comes up with a violation of conservation of energy. "My tiny test balls received kinetic energy proportional to their masses, so logically, if I put a wrecking ball in the way it would absorb more energy than I put into the pulse! Ha!" He calls this a violation of the equivalence principle, which is absolutely wrong. It's a violation of conservation of energy, which is technically equivalent to saying that the laws of physics change from day to day (that time is not a valid symmetry).
Then the rest of the paper goes into theories of quantum gravity and stranger stuff, which is most certainly not proven physics (not that I don't believe it, but come on!). I didn't read any of it, because I would rather read good science fiction than bad science fiction.
Assuming this is not a hoax, I would be mildly interested in seeing a proper analysis of this high-energy E-M pulse. But there's enough genuine and important scientific research that is getting its funding slashed in the US (thanks, Bush!), so I hope experiments like this don't get more attention than they deserve.
Topher Cawlfield
Background on Podkletnov (blatant kw) (Score:5, Informative)
There's the original paper [inetarena.com], written in 1992.
There's the Wired article [wired.com] by Charles Platt which goes into detail exactly what happened after he published the first paper.
And finally there's a web site on Gravity called Quantum Cavorite [inetarena.com]. It seems to be rational, although somewhat optimistic. The main lanl.gov site also has some great material on the two big approaches to G: spin foams & loops (general relativity guys) and noncommutative string geometry (particle physics guys).
What I find really strange about this paper is that after being ignored for years, not having anyone being able to repeat his results reliably and refusing to help out NASA in verifying his methods, the guy is not only back for more, but he's proposing a theory which he says invalidates General Relativity. This looks as suicidal as <obSlash>a startup company proposing to wipe out Microsoft</obSlash>...
Re:Background on Podkletnov (blatant kw) (Score:2)
This is either important or fake (Score:2)
But this new experimental design looks much better. The target is far from the generating machinery (tens of meters), and heavy shielding is between them. The effect observed is non-statistical and large.
This is encouraging. It's not experimental error. Either this is a major result, or it's fake. Now others have to try to reproduce the effect.
I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Surprisingly little fuss was made about this considering it meant that the most fundamental prediction physics has made about the nature of the universe is wrong. It seemed strange to me that they could be this wrong and yet still claim to know exactly what happened in the first few microseconds of the universe. Imagine walking along with someone in the wilderness, who says we are 5 hours, 3 minutes and 32 seconds from our destination. Later you find out that you're on a different continent to the one he said you were on. Yet still he insists he knows your time of arrival to the precise second. A modicum of doubt would seem appropriate.
Anyway, I wonder if this could be the missing force ?
Does not claim direct contradiction to GR (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how many people actually tried to read the paper. I read it and I don't see anything that directly contradicts General Relativity. It mentions that PERHAPS the effect is related to Torsion theory or others that seem to violate certain principles of GR, but from what I gather these theories don't contradict GR. There is a difference. Quantum Theory often violates GR - or APPEARS to do so, given our incomplete understanding of the universe. And so what if GR is not quite perfect? There is room to learn.
Also, there is no way that this is sending out bursts of electricity or magnetic force the way Taco describes. The experiment used apparatus to shield against electro-magnetism. If it is EM, then it is still very odd behaviour in that it can do something no other EM force previously observed can do.
The reaction of most people on this list is that he has just made a EM field - come on ... obviously it's not. Read the paper and you will see that the radiation emitted is proportional to the mass of the target objects, and that it is not in any way slowed down nor does it alter it's course through material that 'normal' radiation is at least effected by. If his results are correct, this is not electromagnetism.
I am not saying that this guy has discovered what he suspects: I don't know. But it's pretty damn interesting, and of course other people should try to duplicate the results.
The Billiard Ball By Asimov (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the part that interests me: (Score:3, Interesting)
"It cannot be understood in the framework of general relativity."
If this isn't bogus, it means that there's a great big hole in Einstein's view of gravity in particular and possibly the universe in general. The question is how big the hole is.
When you're talking about faster-than-light travel in the realm of special relativity, you have three choices:
1.) Causality - event A causes event B, such as "I push key on keyboard, then letter appears on screen.
2.) FTL - moving faster than 3E8 m/s.
3.) Relativity - No matter how fast you go, light is always measured to be going 3E8 m/s in relation to you. Space-time itself is altered to make this so.
Of those three, you can only have two. If you move faster than light under relativity, you begin to move backwards in time. Even worse, causality goes out the window. Using the example of my keyboard again, all observers moving slower than the speed of light see that I press the key BEFORE it appears on the screen (but they disagree on how long before), so I essentially cause it to happen. Photons see everything as simultaneous (literally. A photon considers my typing to be simultaneous to the big bang). A person moving faster than light, though, will instead see that the letters appearing on my screen before I type, meaning that the words are causing me to press the keys. Under relativity, it looks this way because it IS that way, because all observations (in an inertial frame of reference, blah blah blah) are by definition right under relativity. This means nothing really causes anything, since it can be proved that both A caused B and B caused A. The universe runs entirely on coincidence if this is the case.
This also leaves the door open for headache-inducing paradoxes (give two duelers tachyon pistols and they will both shoot each other before the other fires), but that's another long story.
If we can find holes in relativity, though, it may be the one of those three options we throw out. This will let us get to the next star system in a reasonable amount of time while still being able to prove that we invented warp drive, not the other way around. :)
The Crackpot Index (Score:2)
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
The state of belief these days. (Score:3, Informative)
Whether this guy is right or wrong, the vast majority of us won't be involved in that determination. Mostly, we're not scientists. And so we debate back and forth on the merits of this paper, but without reaching any conclusions.
If you feel SO strongly about this paper, for or against, then get yourself into a lab.
Because you aren't helping us and you aren't helping yourself with empty claims of insanity or genius on the part of this researcher.
Try to keep in mind a few points: First, that in nearly every case of claims of fundamental breakthroughs, it does not pan out.
Second, try to wrap your mind around the fact that our knowledge of the universe is woefully incomplete, will probably always be so, and that any totally new discovery MAY seem impossible in light of current understanding.. because current understanding is wrong.
There is no armchair way to determine the truth or falsehood of this guys claims, you HAVE to test.
I almost am of the opinion that anyone claiming a sufficiently strange new theory should build a device which demonstrates this new knowledge as an obvious effect. In other words, if you claim to have discovered a storage effect for "life-force" (whatever that is), then you had better go on and build a battery. Because no one will believe you. And usually, they'll be right. But not always.
Re:The state of belief these days. (Score:2)
I've seen it. It is very cool, but it isn't new.
And it has NOTHING to do with gravity.
Data tends to uphold 'Standard Model' (Score:2, Informative)
And what about anti-particles... We can produce anti-quarks. Not many of them, but we know they exist. Merging that idea with gravitons / anti-gravitons is a bit trickier. It would take a bit of hand-waving to predict anti-force carriers. NOTE: an anti-particle is not the same as the "cousin" particle described above. Just a thought. Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
H.G. Wells' "Cavorite" (Score:2)
travel in H.G. Wells "First Men in the Moon" (1919),
This is nothing new at all (Score:3, Interesting)
One writer discusses that power through conductors creates magnetic fields. That's true. We all knew that. High amounts of power through conductors creates large magnetic fields. That only stands to reason. High amounts of power also creates high amounts of heat in the conductor causing the conductor to burn out like a filament in a lightbulb. Enter superconductors.
Now we can create (very) large magnetic fields that can be sustained. But why? Well, look at your hard drive. See that voice coil? See how quickly and accurately it moves? Imagine a vehicle fitted with a superconducting "voice coil system" that can literally surf on the Earth's magnetic field. This technology has existed secretly for quite some time.
I've always been kind of excited by the technology. It's very cool when you think about it. Now imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Repulsive Black Holes (Score:2, Informative)
"THREE years ago we discovered that the Universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Now physicists say this might mean the Universe is littered with invisible "anti black holes" that repel any matter that comes close."
by Hazel Muir
From New Scientist magazine, vol 171 issue 2298, 07/07/2001, page 7
See also the paper, "Interplay Between Gravity and Quintessence: A Set of New GR Solutions"
Authors: Arthur D. Chernin, David I. Santiago, Alexander S. Silbergleit
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106144
I've not read this link, but you might like to.
OMG! (Score:3, Funny)
So I read the article... (Score:5, Informative)
(a) He has fudged his data or left out some important part of his apparatus.
(b) He has discovered something important.
Not having been published in a peer reviewed journal, and having no physical collaboration from independent observers (his co-author never actually participated in the experiment), I would have to lean toward choice (a).
His experimental apparatus is also very home grown. What does he mean that he couldn't "get a good enough vacuum to prevent condensation on the superconductor" ??? His home brew method to manufacture his SC coating looks EZ Bake style to me also.
However, if his experiment and results are God's honest truth, there are some interesting implications.
He says that he measured the force on pendulums of ceramic, wood, rubber, etc hanging from cotton strings seperated from his spark discharge machine by distances of SIX and ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY meters, including walls and steel plates. One must not that he does not publish the results for the 150m experiment. His primary results are from a rubber sphere, and he doesn't explicitly publish any other data. However, he claims to have imparted about 2 milliJoules of energy into the ball about 20 feet away. That's a 1/2 ounce ball on a 30 inch string given enough kick to swing 6 inches. If this is correct, it really is truly amazing.
His writing style and lack of clarity also lead me to believe that his results do not speak for themselves.
Once we get some replication of his setup, then we can see for ourselves. Nobel Prize - or Cold Fusion.
/Muerte
Re:So I read the article... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So I read the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So I read the article... (Score:2, Funny)
It was probably windy that day
Re:So I read the article... (Score:2, Informative)
Actually the paper does. It says on page 9 of the PDF file:
From Table 1 on page 8 of the paper he gives experimental error as:
Re:So I read the article... (Score:2)
Re:So I read the article... (Score:5, Informative)
Chucking theory, we are left with two experimental results: a rather plausible effect and an implausible one. The plausible result is his description of how the discharge evolves through T_c. Still, he gives no explanation of what T_c was and more importantly he never mentions transition width. His mention that in his first experiments the YBCO film degraded makes me think that his temprature control was highly questionable so he may have been still above T_c even with claims to the contrary. Still, he may be right when he says that his setup represents a new or at least unusual N-S junction.
The implausible result is his claims of a force beam and that his beam does not dissipate through walls, air and other things. He claims that his discharge has a side effect of producing a beam capable of significant mechanical effects. The sheer difference in scale between known gravitational effects and his measurements makes me wonder if the beam exists at all. The lack of dissipation combined with its strong effect on the balls leaves me wondering if conservation laws would be violated.
The paper is horridly written. Parts aren't proper English (which I am ready to excuse as he is not from an English speaking country), parts aren't proper physics (like when he claims that the electrons forming his discharge are coming from pair condensate without any justification to substantiate such an implausible scenario), parts aren't proper experimental procedure (e.g his vacuum quality, his lack of pictures to illustrate discharge dynamics, etc). His figures don't have captions and some have unlabeled axes. His theoretical discussion includes passages trying to say, in effect: people don't know where this comes from in high T_c so it may be related to our effect. Still, I would not judge a book by its cover. If only one of the effects he observed is real then he has made a contribution to science, though after reading his paper, I doubt there will be revolutionary advances coming from this.
paramagnetic? (Score:3, Informative)
Well for starters... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:paramagnetic? (Score:5, Informative)
It was found that the force of the impact on pendulums made of different materials does not depend on the material but is only proportional to the mass of the sample. Pendulums of different mass demonstrated equal deflection at constant voltage. This was proved by a large number of measurements using spherical samples of different mass and diameter.
This seems to suggest either 1) antigravity etc or 2) paramagnetism. It would seem to rule out contamination with iron as someone else suggested. It would also be nice to know from some of the physicists around here whether or not there is a lot of experience with magnetic fields of this strength at this temperature.
Considering how deadly this kind of research must be to your career, you have to admire this scientist. It would seem obvious that if we began to understand it we would be able to control it in some way, that it would seem like a logical course of scientific inquiry.
Re:paramagnetic? (Score:2)
Third possibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Or 3) electromagnetic induction.
Normally 3) would require some conductivity. But if the magnetic field change was strong enough and/or of short enough duration it could generate free charge carriers within something normally an insulator or produce adequate eddy current to cause a detectable motion by moving bound charges without ionizing their atoms.
Documentation of artifical gravity. (Score:3, Funny)
Violates DMCA (Score:3, Funny)
The Gravity Advocates Association (GAA) has announced plans to file suit against the "repulsor beam", claiming it "circumvents established gravitational force technology"
In other news, Podkletnov has been arrested by the FBI and is being held without bail on charges of "violating basic scientific laws"
Re:Violates DMCA (Score:3, Funny)
Homer: Lisa! Go to your room!
Lisa: But why?
Homer: Because in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Re:Violates DMCA (Score:4, Funny)
You have violated the spelling of the DMCA and will be jailed with the Village People.
Gravitational Field (Score:3, Funny)
"Gravitational Field." Hmph! This whole story is repulsive!
Re:Gravitational Field (Score:2)
The workers and contractors of the mints are paid with _actual_ money. What they produce is just fancy paper until it is sprinkled with the Royal Penguin Piss.
theory (Score:3, Informative)
at least at first look,
people have been talking about this
kind of thing for ever.
Basicly it leads to the idea that
gravity travels instantly
which violates relitivity
which in turn, up ends everything
all the way to string (super string) theory...
wasn't there some CEO who vanished after he started doing reasearch with some guy about this stuff?
Re:theory (Score:3, Interesting)
That gravitiy does travel instantly is not a proof on violation of the relitiy theory. You must proof that gravitiy CHANGES can travel instantly, and that one can transfer information through this. Something not in contrast to the idea gravity expands instantly, so how about to say a remote view can only see changes in gravity after enough time has passed that lightspeed time/space factor passed toward him. You can't destroy or create masses, right? So you can't create or destroy gravity force. You can only pull apart an object into two, so the attraction force toward that object is seperated into two, so the once unified force is split into two, but does the remote viewer "feel" this "instantly" or not? Does the gravitiy information that these objects splitted travel with lightspeed or faster than light? Does there travel any information at all? Maybe the sum of attrcation stays the same, so theres no information send over. However my calculations do show a change in force.
Can I use two objects by frequently joining them together and ripping them a part to generate gravitiy waves? How fast would they travel then? Would gravitiy waves obey to the same laws as the electro/magnetic do? (light)
I wish I had a huge labratory where I can manipulate with millions of tons of mass
Re:theory (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:theory (Score:2)
Experimental evidence shows that gravity travels at not less than 2x10^10 times the speed of light. See The Speed of Gravity - what Experiments Say [ldolphin.org].
Here's the abstract:
Abstract
Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the "Poynting-Robertson effect"); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to v/c to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in v/c, is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature. Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat spacetime with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2 x 10^10 c. Such a change of perspective requires no change in the assumed character of gravitational radiation or its lightspeed propagation. Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR-at least, not if favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.
Re:theory (Score:2)
This page [ucr.edu] contains a lot of links generally rebutting a lot of "fringe" claims on physics topics. He has A Whole Section [ucr.edu] devoted to Mr. van Flander's paper, in which he links to rebuttals by gravitational physicists of Mr. van Flander's ideas. The short answer from them seems to be "Tom van Flanders doesn't understand relativity very well."
Re:theory (Score:5, Funny)
yes, shortly after beginning the research, he inexplicably was shot off into outer space.
Re:theory (Score:3, Funny)
Must have been gravitation
Pulled him to the task
This is rather interesting. (Score:3, Interesting)
Many micrometeors have sizes smaller than a fraction of an inch, and we cannot accurately scan for them (it has been described almost as a life sized comparison to Heisenburg's Uncertainty Princible.) This would honestly help out small satellites, because a small micrometeors can disable or destroy those satallites with a single pass. With NASA now focusing on a "smaller, faster, cheaper" mantra, this may not be worked on as a viable option for quite some time. (I live in the states, and NASA is a seen as the world leader in Space... please don't flame me ESA members...)
An workable model formed on this approach could see itself attached later to the space station or even the shuttle (The shuttle has sensors, (and so does mission control) that scans constantly for items that could hit the shuttle and destroy it. Think the opening sequence to Armegeddon, (well, maybe not that bad...
This will be interesting to see how these finding develop.
Re:This is rather interesting. (Score:3, Funny)
Coming up right after that is the inverse tachyon pulse, I suppose...
+5 gratuitous joke. (Score:5, Funny)
It's called a subwoofer.
Big woop, so now it's superconducting.
</bad joke>
Yes, every editor is Taco. Especially that fascist Michael.
Re:i love you. (Score:2)
J
Try ¹.
I discovered repulsion many years ago! (Score:3, Informative)
The effect is inversely proportional to distance.
It also seems to be inversely proportional to the mass of the woman.
You don't need superconductors to do all that (Score:4, Funny)
not news (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Magnetics? (Score:2, Informative)
j_w_dougherty
Insightful my ass! Read the damn article (Score:5, Insightful)
Another glib, uninformed remark rated as Insightful -- two people who obviously didn't bother to read the article. Well that's the Internet for you.
To sum it up: They built this magic superconductor thingy in a vacuum chamber, charged it up and measured the effect at different distances on pendulums of various materials, weighing 10 to 50 grams, hung in a separate vacuum chamber see their rough drawing [lanl.gov]. When they fired up the superconductor, the pendulums swung away several inches.
The amount of movement varied with the mass of the pendulums, but not the distance or the materials (they mention metal, glass, ceramics, wood, rubber, plastic). Pendulums 6 meters and 150 meters away in a different building, separated by brick walls and an inch of steel, showed identical effects. Even with "trace amounts of iron" a magnetic effect would vary with the square of the distance. But what do I know?
Of course, perhaps I'm prejudiced against people who criticize research without bothering to read it (and moderators who hand out points like candy).
Re:Insightful my ass! Read the damn article (Score:2, Informative)
So people stop craping about things you don't know let the guys with too much brain deal with it.
Re:Insightful my ass! Read the damn article (Score:2)
Don't be so silly. To compensate the for the increase in r^2, you just square G. If Q can do it, so can you.
Re:Magnetics? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd think using a non-ferrous target would be the first thing they'd think of, and the first thing any researcher trying to duplicate the results would do. Stay tuned!
Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak too (Score:4, Insightful)
Gravity is the weakest form of energy, it needs an incredible amount of mass to create a noticable amount of effect.
Sure, that's easy to say now, but not 200 years ago. 200 years ago, a lodestone was *the* magnet. It was a piece of rock that attracted iron filings.
A couple of weeks ago while I was out at a wrecking yard digging up parts for one of my cool old cars, I watched an electromagnet lifting cars. That's a lot of iron filings.
Similarly, 200 years ago, an ebony rod attracted grains of pepper. Now, we harness electrostatic attraction and replusion for all sorts of things, ranging from TV sets and computer monitors to Van de Graaf generators which power linear accelerators at nuclear research facilities.
Consider that, to my knowledge, we've still got no higher understanding of why two positively charged ions repel, or why a positively charged ion attracts a negatively charged ion. Nor do we really understand anything more about magnetism's lines of force than the pretty little lines of iron filings on the paper when we rest it over a bar magnet. Like gravity, they're fundamental forces. We know a little bit about how to use them - the variables involved. Mass, materials which maintain an electrostatic charge well, and ferrous metals. We know they're inter-related. But how do the forces themselves work?
With our present knowledge, we're at about the level of proficiency of a secretary who is good with Excel and yet still refers to her computer as a "hard drive". We can make two of these forces do the things we want them to do, but we don't have any higher knowledge of how they work.
Gravity is, of course, the most difficult of the fundamental forces to research, because it would require either huge masses that you can manipulate at will or incredibly accurate measuring instruments. 200 years from now - maybe even sooner, who knows - we'll probably be able to manipulate gravity at will. Maybe not around the Earth, but maybe around a space ship which we wish to launch from the surface.
Certainly, there's a huge motivation to studying it, especially if it can be harnessed as easily as magnetism. How much does a Space Shuttle booster tank cost to fill?
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:2)
We used to barely understand magnetism, but now we manipulate it all the time.
ergo:
We now barely understand gravity, but in the future we will manipulate it all the time.
Uh, no. Perhaps the law of gravity can be defied near black holes or in some other bizarre frame of reference. This does not mean that we will ever be able to do it. There is no "probably" about it. We might just as probably discover the true nature of gravity and find that it is completely impossible to defy.
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:3, Insightful)
We used to barely understand magnetism, but now we manipulate it all the time.
I suspect that we don't actually understand magnetism, we simply harness it to our own ends. 200 years ago, we didn't do that.
We now barely understand gravity, but in the future we will manipulate it all the time.I suspect that probably, yes, we will.
Uh, no. Perhaps the law of gravity can be defied near black holes or in some other bizarre frame of reference. This does not mean that we will ever be able to do it. There is no "probably" about it. We might just as probably discover the true nature of gravity and find that it is completely impossible to defy.Sure. And that's entirely possible. But on the other hand, we can be fairly certain that the fundamental forces of nature occur on a subatomic level. We've only really been able to harness and understand fission for 50 years; we're still reading the table of contents on the book of subatomic phenomena. And it looks like it's a big, thick book, full of incredibly juicy stuff, but there's a lot of hard work ahead. Kinda like flipping through your first book on machine language programming.
What I'm merely suggesting is that I grew up in an age of scientific enlightenment - as did you. I trust and believe in science, if not just to make my life better, but at the least to make it more interesting. Now, since the fundamental forces seem to be more or less inter-related, I have faith in science. If we can harness two of the fundamental forces, why not the third?
Interestingly enough, plasma is widely held to be a fourth state of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma). And, while it's clearly affected by magnetism and electrostatic forces, it also seems to be unaffected by gravity. Now, I can convert water to ice or steam relatively effortlessly with technology; maybe one day I'll convert it to plasma? (Today, August 2001, I can convert argon to plasma at the flip of a switch in my bedroom. That's almost as cool as your website.)
Have faith in science. The best minds in the world are working on this one. I believe some sort of answer will come during out lifetimes.
When my father was my age, the first transistorized computers were shipping, but they still didn't fit on your desk. Think about it.
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:2)
No, not some of the best minds are working on this. The best minds have moved on. They might be examining the nature of gravity, but not necesarily in the hopes of it's manipulation.
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:2)
Which, unfortunately, blows a hole in your claim that gravity will one day be manipulated the way the electromagnetic force is today. The gravitational force between two protons is on the order of 10^-36 times the electrical force. That's what people mean when they say that gravity is weak.
Yet the gravity occuring on a subatomic level is sufficient to hold two protons together, in holy matrimony, despite their obvious lack of electrical... uhhh... chemistry.
Bollocks. The fact that the Sun is a sphere, and not a cloud of atoms evenly dissipated across the universe, is pretty strong evidence that plasma is affected by gravity.For sure. But what percentage of the gas in Sol is involved in fusion at any given nanosecond? This candle's been lit for billions of years and still has a lot more to go. The popular theory, as I understood it, is that the sun is primarily composed of superheated gases. The plasma is involved only in the fusion reaction which powers it; beyond that, it's gas, which remains affected by its own gravity.
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:2)
I know that
But what percentage of the gas in Sol is involved in fusion at any given nanosecond? This candle's been lit for billions of years and still has a lot more to go. The popular theory, as I understood it, is that the sun is primarily composed of superheated gases. The plasma is involved only in the fusion reaction which powers it; beyond that, it's gas, which remains affected by its own gravity.
Inescapable/unavoidable violations. (Score:2)
Thought experiment #1:
Imagine a setup in which the claimed charged/superconductor disc setup is activated, manipulating gravity and producing a area above the device where earths' gravity is "shielded". Now, rig a device (weighted buckets on a string for example), one side of which is exposed to normal gravity and the other side of which is suspended above your Average Household Gravity Manipulation Device(tm). The apparatus on the side of normal gravity would be in constant frefall while the side above the shielded area "flows" up. Instant perpetual motion machine and violation of thermodynamic law.
IANAP but it would appear that this is inescapable and would prove gravity manipulation impossible. Any REAL physicists here please feel free to humiliate me mercilessly if I am wrong.
Re:Inescapable/unavoidable violations. (Score:2)
Re:Inescapable/unavoidable violations. (Score:2)
Re:Inescapable/unavoidable violations. (Score:2)
Not if it costs you a large amount of energy to run your Average Household Gravity Manipulation Device. Which it probably would.
Re:Inescapable/unavoidable violations. (Score:2)
Thought experiment #3 (taking it further):
It would seem that the AHGMD producing the shielding effect would necissarily have to create other impossible effects in order to achieve a situation in which it may escape the thermodynamic paradox (and behave like a normal powered device). Imagine the AHGMD with a fixed power consumption and proportional gravity shield running; when a massive object is positioned over the device in the partially nulled G-field it would also have to some how reinstate the gravity field above IT to compensate for the energy consumed by the AHGMD levitating it!
This seems totally incomprehensible to me and would seem to imply that the AHGMD would by definion, be required to consume an infinite amount of energy (since there is no way you could prevent it from potentially lifting an infinite amount of mass) in order to escape the paradox(therefore precluding it's possibility).
my head hurts. goodnight.
Unified Theory (Score:2)
When doing science it is almost impossible to prove something is impossible. The fact that you think it is impossible is probably because you haven't tried the 'right' approach and that the necessary technology or understanding is not yet in place. For example, while I don't personally believe in time-travel, there is no way I can prove it is impossible.
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:5, Insightful)
> A couple of weeks ago while I was out at a wrecking yard digging up parts for one of my cool old cars, I watched an electromagnet lifting cars. That's a lot of iron filings.
> Similarly, 200 years ago, an ebony rod attracted grains of pepper. Now, we harness electrostatic attraction and replusion for all sorts of things, ranging from TV sets and computer monitors to Van de Graaf generators which power linear accelerators at nuclear research facilities.
Yes, but the important difference between weakness of magnetism 200 years ago, and weakness of gravity right now is the reason why such weakness was observed.
Your ebony rod is so weakly electified because although it comprises an impressive number of charges, most balance out (there are positive and negative charges which cancel each other's effect out). Net electric charge is only caused by an imbalance between positive and negative, and this imbalance is incredibly low: maybe only one electron per atom, and only on the surface. ALthough the mass of the object may be high, only a tiny part of that mass contributes to the effect. And during the last 200 years, we've just been getting better at augmenting the proportion of the mass that has an effect.
Magnetism involves movement of charges. In case of natural magnetism, this is the (non-cancelled) movement of electron around the atom's nucleus. In most materials, this cancels out because:
Today, the strongest magnets are, as you correctly pointed out, electromagnets. In those we have a macroscopic movement of charges (i.e. electric current), which we can theoretically make as high as we wish (as permitted by the electrical resistence of the material and electric power at our disposal...)
Gravity is different though: there are no "negative" gravity particle which could cancel out the normal positive gravity, or at least there are none known today. Weakness of gravity thus does not come from cancellation, but is rather inherent in the force itself! The active principle in gravity is mass, and the only way to get "better" gravity is indeed to augment the mass. Moreover, unlike magnetism, gravity is not tied to movement, thus we cannot manipulate it either by speeding up the objects (at least not until we reach relativistic speeds).
> Consider that, to my knowledge, we've still got no higher understanding of why two positively charged ions repel, or why a positively charged ion attracts a negatively charged ion. Nor do we really understand anything more about magnetism's lines of force than the pretty little lines of iron filings on the paper when we rest it over a bar magnet. Like gravity, they're fundamental forces. We know a little bit about how to use them - the variables involved. Mass, materials which maintain an electrostatic charge well, and ferrous metals. We know they're inter-related. But how do the forces themselves work?
We may not know the philosophical reason why magnetism and electricity exists at all, but we have a pretty detailed understanding however how they interact (Maxwell equations), why the electric/magnetic field is shaped the way it is, how those forces propagate, etc.
> With our present knowledge, we're at about the level of proficiency of a secretary who is good with Excel and yet still refers to her computer as a "hard drive". We can make two of these forces do the things we want them to do, but we don't have any higher knowledge of how they work.
Our knowledge of magnetism/electricity may not be complete enough to satisfy a philosopher, but it is certainly complete enough for an engineer, and well beyond that of your Windows toting secretary knowing nothing else than Excel.
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:2)
Must... not... nit-pick... willpower... weaking... ARGH!
IMO, you're throwing around the word "mass" a little too loosely. Technically speaking, there are two kinds of mass: inertial mass (that which resists a change in motion) and gravitational mass (that which attracts other mass, a gravitational "charge" so to speak). Under current physics, they just happen to be the same (that is, 1 kg(inertial) = 1 kg(gravitational). They tend to call it the equivalence principle. [uidaho.edu]
On the other hand, this equivalency principle is a side-effect of general relativity (which states that it is impossible to tell the difference between force due to linear acceleration and force due to gravity, so therefore you can't tell the difference between the two types of mass). If this experiment holds true, what we have on our hands is an object with low mass (inertial) and a high mass (gravitational), which negates the principle and possibly does some ugly things to general relativity.
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:2)
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:2)
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:2)
You are entirely correct. Unfortunately, this is almost always the case in the world of science, and it's a fact that many people forget. For the most part, we don't know why anything works the way it does. We perform an experiment, make an observation, and then try to come up with a model (ie, equation) that describes behavior and allows us to predict behavior in the future. Then, based on that model, we form an hypothesis, and set up another experiment to test it. If the hypothesis is correct, we assume our model to be correct (as best we can), and wait for another experiment to come along that defies our model. If our experiment proves our hypothesis to be incorrect, we adjust our model. Repeat ad infinitum.
A typical example of this process is "classical" physics vs relativity. Classical physics worked fine at relatively low speeds, but at high speeds it falls apart. Relativity applies adjustments to classical physics to compensate for the inconsistencies. Can you solve classical physics problems with relativity? Sure you can. But most people wouldn't bother with the added complexity to determine the velocity of a projectile fired from a cannon and the distance it will travel.
This is the scientific method. I'm not sure we'll ever understand why anything works like it does. We'll just be able to predict what will happen, and thus use such knowledge to manipulate these forces. If anybody doesn't believe this, take a simple physics topic, and play the children's "why" game. Believe me, you'll get tired of the game long before you finish coming up with "why" questions.
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:2)
Of course, that philosophy will get you in trouble with my friends in the string theory department, most of whom take the view that when you get to a deep enough level of understanding, the workings of the universe are entirely defined by the underlying mathematical structures. Their argument is that, at some level, there isn't anything left to describe, and physics reduces to a bunch of staggeringly nonlinear mathematical relationships (mostly dealing with the topology of the spacetime metric at string-theory scales).
Of course, I'm entirely unqualified to speak further on this subject, as I mostly do astrophysics myself. But hey, when you have friends who will randomly drop by to announce that they no longer believe in spacetime, and can plausibly back it up, you learn stuff. :-)
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:2, Insightful)
For example.
Why do two electrons repel? Because they they have the same charge and same charges repel.
WHy to same charges repel? Because Maxwells equations tell us they do.
Why are Maxwell's equations the way they are? Because nature demands local phase invarience, so we have to gauge the electron field.
Why does nature demand local phase invarience? I dunno, because its pretty?
42
Re:Magnetism and Electrostatic forces seemed weak (Score:2)
First, magnetostatic attraction drops off as distance cubed.
Second, you can actually do a lot better than that, because planes conduct electricity. Thus, with appropriate dynamic fields, you can set up circulating currents in the skin or frame, which you can then couple to with other fields. We're talking big antenna arrays here, but it might just be possible.
Third, any such attempt is likely to melt the plane via inductive heating before you actually "tractor beam" it to the ground.
Finally, for the energy you're expending, a laser or rail/coil-gun setup is vastly more likely to work. And cooler, too.
Re:Magnetics? (Score:2)
Re:Magnetics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because a phenomenon is new doesn't mean that nobody except for its discoverer is qualified to look at it. There are plenty of people in the same general area of experimental physics who are fully qualified to judge whether he's adequately controlled for experimental variables, done proper experimental design, fully considered alternative explanations within currently accepted physical law, etc. Most of the time that somebody discovers something new it turns out that the real explanation is a flaw in their experimental controls, data analysis, etc. and not a genuinely novel phenomenon. Getting other people who know what they're doing to doublecheck your results is a good way of catching that kind of error. That's why peer review exists. Somebody who trumpets his discovery before having others double-check his methodology is doing something highly questionable.
Re:Magnetics? (Score:5, Informative)
My mistake for replying to a reply, rather than taking a quick glance at the article. Since this is being presented on xxx.lanl.gov [lanl.gov], that means that he's basically putting out a preprint. I don't see it mentioned anywhere, but it may actually have been submitted for review somewhere.
I guess that the original poster (who made the remark about not submitting to peer review) is unfamiliar with the way that physicists do things these days. They now put articles that are still under review (or even very preliminary results that aren't ready for formal review yet) on preprint servers like xxx.lanl.gov so that people can read them ASAP with the understanding that they're still preliminary. The authors aren't avoiding review; they're just getting the news out quickly through normal channels.
What makes something crackpot? (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the more valuable experiences I had as a graduate student was to take several of the "crackpot" letters (all the professors I knew would get a few of these every year) and work out in some detail the explanation for what was wrong with the "innovation" being proposed. It was really practice for being a critical peer reviewer, though I didn't realize it until later. Finding the hidden flaw in "obviously" crackpot material was often extremely hard work.
I have a great fondness for people who earnestly try to find new perspectives from which to examine scientific problems. Richard Dawkins, in writing The Selfish Gene, created some stimulating currents in evolutionary thinking through just such a perspective change. I was fully convinced by at least one quantum mechanics revisionist, A. Lande, Quantum Mechanics in a New Key (1973) but I've never found anyone else who's looked at it.
Vacuum fluctuations make sense to me, even though I have little more than Hawking's popularizations to go on. Quantum gravity, I don't know what to think yet. Whether I believe in them or not makes no difference in the appearance of being crackpot -- they just look like trendy, misdirecting camouflage to dress up a minor mystery about some strange happenings when you collapse a strong magnetic field.
Of course, the trouble with this sort of crap detector is, even though it allows you to dismiss a lot of claptrap out of hand, it will likely cause you to incorrectly ignore, once in your lifetime, something that looked crackpot but eventually turned out to be important.
Re:translation? (Score:5, Informative)
They have theories as to why it is, but they're not sure, and they want other people to try it too, which is why they spend so much time explaining EXACTLY what they did.
I'm very interested in seeing someone get a positive result replicating this, don't care much about negative results becuase it's probably fairly touchy, like semicondutors, superconductors, cold fusion, etc.
--Mike--
Re:translation? (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone can debunk the original experiment, and find a more conventional cause for things, then I do care.
As for the touchy aspect of things, let's go back the beginnings of research of a similarly touchy phenomenon back in the 1940s.
Physicists had just learned of the nature of nuclear fission, and had hypothesized about a "chain reaction", which would be self sustaining, if a critical mass of fissionable material could be gathered, with a moderator to slow down the neutrons enough to be captured.
The Germans tried using graphite as a moderator, and came to the conclusion that it was unsuitable, and thus devoted all of their energy to using heavy water as a moderator.
When the scientists at the U of C here in Chicago did the same experiment, they came to the conclusion that it was marginal as a moderator. Fortunately for them, Leo Szilard knew that Boron (which absorbs MANY neutrons) was used in the commercial production of Graphite in the US. Once they had that impurity out of the way, we did what the Germans knew was impossible, on December 2, 1942, and had our very own sustained nuclear chain reaction.
I suspect there are similar effects at work in Cold fusion, and in the experiments we're discussing here. Failure to replicate an experiment, does not invalidate it.
--Mike--
Potential confounding effects. (Score:2)
Hear hear.
The experimental setup involves an enormous fixed magnetic field and enormous pulsed electric and magnetic fields. Shielding against the resulting electro/magnetic/weak-force pulses and all the pathological things they can do to the atoms in your test mass is a real bitch.
So of course they're going to be very careful about any claims and make very elaborate descriptions of the test set up so other people can try to reproduce the effect and determine if it's real.
But a way to modulate gravity - with or without an electro-gravatic unification - would be a tremendous discovery! Cross your fingers.
Re:translation? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:translation? (Score:2, Informative)
Also, their method of detecting pendulum deflection is VERY crude. Its not hard to set up something with a small mirror hanging on the pendulum's thread, such that when the pendulum moves, it causes the deflection of a beam of laser light. This is how they measure deflections in the Cavendish apparatus, which essentially measures the gravitational attraction between two balls of lead (an ammount which is exceedingly small).
The other thing I'd like to see is how much force the 'emitter' device device experiences with different targets, or with under a variety of circumstances. If its behaving like a coherent beam emitter, it should be pushed away even when there isn't a target present.
Still, given all of the things they haven't tried, and all of the things they've yet to do, I think this is a bit early for them to go into the involved set of theories they've discussed in the paper. I think they need to do some narrowing down first
NichG
Re:translation? (Score:3, Funny)
Rocky: (excited) "Bullwinkle! We've found the source of UpsiDaisium!"
Boris: "The moose and squirrel have found it. Now we get rid of moose and squirrel."
Natasha: "But how do we get to the mountain Boris dear if we kill moose and squirrel?"
Re:extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof (Score:2)
Re:extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof (Score:2)
I don't take it to be a standard as much as a simple statement of fact: this is what you need to do to convince others.
Re:Current (Score:2)
Plus or minus an order of magnitude, at least, depending on frequency and conduction path through the body, and a whole hell of a lot of luck of either variety. The human body looks like a very nonlinear device.
Also, high-current AC circuits can pack some nasty surprises. A wedding ring or metal watch band makes a nifty one-turn transformer winding, for instance.
It doesn't pay to get too complacent with either high voltage levels, high current levels, or both.
Re:Current (Score:2)
And thermodynamics isn't violated because you're not getting any energy from these moving electrons.
Re:peer review != slashdot review (Score:2, Funny)
I'd say it would have to be exceptionally unbelievable. I'm still waiting for a theory on those green women that Kirk was always hot for...
Re:And he came up with the idea... (Score:2, Redundant)
Mod me back down! I was kidding for crying out loud! It was a joke about how every crackpot in the world appears to have chosen Tesla as their "patron saint", in spite of his actually being a very serious scientist who had an immeasurable impact on the world.
Re:And he came up with the idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
...and mod this guy up, please.
My view of Tesla is somewhere in the middle. He was a great genius and a true inventor (unlike that marketeer and lab manager Edison) but towards the end of his life he suffered from mental illness. His obsessive-compulsive disorder is well documented, and any number of examples can be given of great men falling in love with an idea, and losing their self-critical facilities as they age (vis. Linus Pauling's obssession with Vitamin C).
The erronous view of Tesla you attribute to skeptics probably has more to do with his cult's deification of him, rather than his real work. The man himself wrote little about his work other than his patents.
Re:Prime candidate for duplication attempts. (Score:2)
A single, sharp impulse might do it, and IMO that's more likely than a gravity beam.
However, looking over the links other posters have supplied, I suspect fraud is the most likely explanation.
Re:Prime candidate for duplication attempts. (Score:2)
>
> As you all know, the first application of the fundamentel research, would be a prototype which causes clothes to jump eighteen inches away from the girl wearing them, thus breaking the ice at parties...
Well, I've done the first half of that. Every time I talk to a girl at a party, not only can I get her clothes to jump 18 inches away, the rest of the girl jumps away with her!
(And better yet, I can do it with a probability approaching p=1.0. No improbability drive required, all I have to do is say "Did you see that physics article on Slashdot the other day?")
When I observed that, in response to this question, girls at parties tended to run away from me at speeds which induced relativistic red shifts, and that this wasn't generally in line with the "typical female" desire to maintain a low body weight, I said "Hey! Running away from me at 0.99c makes you thinner to someone looking at you from the side, but you still add lots of mass!"
Funny, I don't seem to get invited to those sorts of parties anymore...
Re:Totally Offtopic (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they so poor in russia that their universities do not have their own domian presence?
For one, I don't appreciate this troll.
For two, this is some "research center", not a university.
For three, from what I know about the situation, Podkletnov was sacked from several research institutes in the past, and I am unaware of anything that is called "Moscow Chemical Scientific Research Centre" in Moscow, especially not at that address and zip code. If it's a respectful government research agency, then it happened to successfully elude most research institute listings in Moscow. If it's something private: it's their own damn problem if they can't get a domain (which costs pennies in the .ru zone, and you can always get a free .org.ru domain). Something is screwey here, if you ask me...
Re:My dream of floating cars may come true! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for future technology and endeavors, and the idea is cool...but we have enough morons driving on the ground. We don't need them careening around in the air!
Re:Very hard to believe (Score:3, Insightful)