Talk:Anti-gravity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Moved from article page
I cut three rather obscure claims from the article, see below for rationale. --Pjacobi 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-gravity in the context of non-mainstream physics
In the 1970s, an American scientist proposed using superfluid helium in a toroidal vessel to create gravity control.
Robert Distinti, an American engineer, has derived a simple formula that predicts anti-gravity effects when opposite charges are brought close enough. For macroscopic effects, this requires large charges and microscopic distances, but provides a theoretical explanation for the charged capacitor experiments.
In June 2005 F.S. Felber released a paper claiming that when a mass moves faster than 
of the speed of light, general relativity predicts that a moving mass emits a beam of repulsive gravity both forward, and more weakly to the rear of the mass. This repulsive effect could easily be used to accelerate other masses, and the tidal forces are said to be weak. As of February 2006, the paper is still in review.
Several historical oversights need to be rectified in this section.Tcisco 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
It's easy to setup a web page stating rather bold claims about anti-gravity. It even was, and mostly still is, easy to inject such papers into preprint system. But unless these claims lead either to extraordinary public attention or to reactions from scientists, that's far below the threshold for including in an encyclopedia. IMHO and YMMV. --Pjacobi 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Distinti website is a cranky new electromagnetism type website, apparently with an anti-gravity or electric gravity [sic] tinge. A few quotes tell the tale:
- The new model of electromagnetic induction is claimed as superior to Faraday's law in every respect. It predicts things that Faraday can not.
- Introducing for license or sale a revolutionary new advancement in the design and function of...
- The World Leader in Electromagnetic Physics. By Robert J Distinti BS EE
- I've gone back to school to get my graduate degree -- thesis will be on New Electromagnetism.
- Good luck, Robert :-/ As for the eprint, Felber appears to be blissfully unaware of the extensive literature on ultraboosts and has neglected to discuss the possibility that he has confused coordinate effects with physical effects, as indeed appears to be the case. IMHO, this has gotten much more press than it deserves, apparently because someone has been greatly overstating Felber's alleged achievements in various mass media venues, including the Wikipedia.---CH 22:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Any relevance?
"Scientists funded by the European Space Agency have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory. Under certain special conditions the effect is much larger than expected from general relativity and could help physicists to make a significant step towards the long-sought-after quantum theory of gravity."
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM0L6OVGJE_index_0.html
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
There appear to be superficial similarities to Podkletnov's work. I do not have the knowledge to say whether this is at all interesting, related, or just another instance of bogus and/or pseudo- science
There is, however, a nice paragraph referring to Podkletnov's claims in the pdf:
"The reported results are very different from previous claims in the literature from Podkletnov claiming gravitational shielding effects above rotating superconductors 21,22 . As we have not observed any change in the vertical sensors (± 5 µg) above any superconductors during their phase transition and during rotation, our results even put new limits on any possible shielding effects (effect must be < 0.0005% compared to claims of up to 2% of weight change for samples above a rotating superconductor)."
WLD 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Destructive attitude of Wikipedians
Everyone should be able to participate in the debate. However, now the committed members express rejective, intolerant and malicious attitude towards some writers. They do not explain their point of view purely concentrating on the issues, but also imply that some people should not bother them with certain point of views. The critic of this page is a good example of this. Objectively, I'm not taking a position towards the claims of the counter arguments. I'm just pointing out the offensive style of the committed judges of the Wikipedia. You should also explain why you repeatedly erase links from that page. I have also copied my critisism to my user page of Improvements to Wikipedia
(unsigned comment by User:Teemu Ruskeepää)
- Come again? What authors? What "judges"? What page? What links? ---CH 03:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] note for editors:Do not delete under pretenses of "Pseudoscience"
It must be at least docuented(what claims are), just tag it with pseudoscience or/and explanation of maintsream physics why it doesn't work. Deleting information is wrong.If we allow only right information on wiki, which must be documented by all academic sources,it will be a desert. A bunch of book summaries.This isn't wiki purpose,providing maximum knowledge on subject.Antigravity is pseudoscience(or at best fringe science) subject.Just talk about it like it is.NPOV isn't deleting Pseudoscience its allowing to present any information in NEUTRAL Manner.Just keep pseudosciece notices.
84.94.137.17 (talk • contribs) (aka the cable.012.net.il anon)
- First, please consider registering and in any case sign your contribs. Second, current violations of WP:NPOV include several claims of form
- according to [publication], blah blah blah
- instead of
- according to [[Robert Park]], a professor of [[Physics]] at the [[University of Maryland]] who writes a regular column on fringe science at [link to the website in question], {{quotation|whatever he said|Robert Park, [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] date}}.
- See the difference? My point is that we need to provide enough information for the reader to figure out that a claim appearing on Robert Distinti's website does not carry the same weight as Prof. Park's comments in Nature. Third, the current version is absurdly slanted toward promotion of dubious fringe ideas in various ways, and this must be addressed.---CH 23:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
American Antigraverty is quite important in the schintific anti-graverty\alternitive energy scine, could we mention them more than just once at the bottem of the page?
[edit] American Antigraverty
American Antigraverty is quite important in the schintific anti-graverty\alternitive energy scine, could we mention them more than just once at the bottem of the page? Alan2here 20:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Antigravity
Antigravity, antigravity,
The bigest scientific and non-scientific paradox and problem in the last several centuries. Serious and honest scientist believe it is nosence. Nobody is capable to see that antigravity was discovered by Newton.
It is not an error. I am not talking about gravity, than rather about so called antigravity.
See data: http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm
Newton have seen that pendulum watches are going slower closer to the equator, and stated: it is caused by force arising from Earths rotation. This force decreases value of gravitational accveleration, and because of it the watches are going slower. Newton calculated value of that force, i.e. decreasing of gravity to cca 0,034m/sec2. Several centuries latter it was confirmed by gravimetrical meassurements. At the equator, bodies lose 0,34% of its weight. At the geo. lat. 45 degree only 0,17%.
The force decreasing the weight of bodies, i.e. gravitational force always has the same line and opposite direction of gravity.
But that force is not antigravity, than rather gravifugal force. This force is arising in all cases in which gravity has a function of centripetal force. In those cases I am using the term gravipetal force. Gravipetal and gravifugal - instead of too general: centripetal and centrifugal.
I believe so called and desired antigravity does not exist. Nature replaced it by gravifugal force. At the velocity 7,9km/sec. value of gravifugal force equals to that of gravity, i.e. gravipetal force, bodies totaly lose the weight and astronauts are levitating in their space-ships. By gravifugal force we are capable to do all we believed would be possible to do by so called antigravity. Why nobody can see it?
Instead of to draw the attention to that fact, many scientist and no-scientist try to discover something that was discovered long, long time ago, confirmed by numerous gravimetrical meassurements and astronautical experience.
For more see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Agravity:
- This theory, although plausible, is incorrect. The fault is in the extrapolation from a pendulum to a free disk - the supporting string of the pendulum is the route by which the force due to gravity is counteracted, the free disk does not have this connection and so the gravitational force is not counteracted. - Zephyris Talk 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] {{totallydisputed}}
I've upgraded the tag from {{POV}} to {{totallydisputed}}.
Let me first cite the reason of the {{POV}}-tagger (I didn't search far enough into the history to find did it):
- in first half, the description of alleged "mainstream viewpoint" on "anti-gravity" are mischaracterized (please see talk page); in second half, unverified "electrogravity" claims are presented as verifiable fact
IMHO it's about the same only more so after the recent additions.
Einsteins GTR is well established and makes it crystal clear, that no gravity shielding or anti-gravity can be done. So you first have to disprove it. No serious attempts at disproving have been seen for decades.
Pjacobi 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Edits
Thank you for the welcome and quick response. I have no problems with abstaining from incorporating UFO articles with this section. I removed the corresponding citations from the list of references after discovering your deletions. My goal was to provide a wealth of literature that evinces the existence of a nation-wide effort to develop gravity control propulsion that had continued for at least eleven years. The articles, books, and newspapers were free of retractions and denials. And, there were no indications of failure. It would not have taken eleven years to discover shortcomings in the gravitic segment of the Biefeld-Brown Effect. But, it would have taken eleven or more years to develop substances with high dielectric constants and/or invent high voltage, light-weight, power supplies. The engineers' success would not have necessitated flight for all. "G-cars" may be very expensive. If the flight characteristics of "G-cars" approximated those of documented UFO incidents, the Department of Defense would use them for covert operations and keep them from the public for as long as possible.
216.125.49.252 19:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you plugged in numbers into both Musha's and Ivanov's equations. Ivanov seems to require higher potential differences to attain the same accelerations as Musha's equation. An interesting shortcoming of both expressions is their enability to account for the high correlations with lunar phases that were reported by Thomas Townsend Brown and Takaaki Musha. Tcisco 07:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Error
"Gravity is a force that pulls the 4 or 8 dimensions together." This quote is presented in the context of general relativity. First, forces aren't really defined in GR in the conventional sense, and as a theory of gravity (unlike Newtonian gravity), GR doesn't have gravity acting as force. Rather, it changes the geometry of the spacetime, and an object simply continues to move on the geodesic. Secondly, the idea of gravity being a force holding together "4 or 8 dimensions" has no basis in classical GR or even orthodox quantum theories of gravity (M-theory or even quantum loop). This claim is just rubbish.
If several scientific journals give consideration and space to antigravity (and they do), Wikipedia should as well.
[edit] Pseudoscience Is Still Knowledge
No one should remove information from Wikipedia simply because they do not believe it is scientific. An Encyclopedia is not intended to be scientific, but to be a reference of human knowledge, which may vary in scope far beyond scientific topics to such subjects as philosophy, religion, or so called "psuedoscience." Moreover, Wikipedia should give all views equal measure, even if a view is unpopular. Simply because most physicists believe Anti-Gravity to be a load of crap doesn't mean it's a fact. Theories aren't facts, period. They are theories. Contemporary science has never claimed to answer all questions or to present its theories as facts, but rather to find rational explanations based on prior knowledge, and for all we know that prior knowledge isn't even correct; see Brain in a Jar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.221.247.179 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
