When was Podkletnov effect definitely discarded as not existent?

  • Thread starter jumpjack
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation starts with a person discussing their discovery of the Podkletnov effect and their confusion about the validity of the research. They mention a paper from 2007 attempting to explain the effect, but admit they cannot understand it. They then bring up other theories and research related to the topic, including an article about the shape of fundamental particles and the possibility of antigravity production. The conversation turns to the question of when research on the Podkletnov effect was halted and the misunderstanding of scientific procedure is addressed. The conversation ends with a discussion of a paper that provides an alternative hypothesis for the observations related to the Podkletnov effect.
  • #1
jumpjack
222
3
I just discovered Podkletnov effect after googling around after reading anhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf" .

My thread has been closed saying that this effect is confirmed as not existent... but I just found an attempt of explaining it, published in 2007:
"[URL Theory of the Podkletnov Effect based on General Relativity: Anti-Gravity
Force due to the Perturbed Non-Holonomic Background of Space[/URL]

I can't even understand the title, so I don't even try to understand the paper...

But I'd like to know whene researches on this topic halted, having I found some info about Einstein Cartan Evance theory which appears to be another possible explanation of the effect.

According to Scala's study, instead, using superconductors appears to be the WORST method to look for gravity/magnetism correlation, being gravitational field directly proportional to magnetic permeability... which is close to 0 in superconductors!

Plenty of researches exist on the topic:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...7/PP-10-13.PDF
http://www.aias.us/documents/uft/a63rdpaper.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a75thpaper.pdf

Antigravity production confirmed, on arxiv publications:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This gives an alternative hypoethesis to explain the observations.
http://jvr.freewebpage.org/TableOfContents/Volume5/Issue3/L1_AnExplanationOfTheAntigravityEffectObservedInPodkletnovsExperiments_061210A_L1_L4.pdf

I have no idea whether or not it is reasonable, or how it relates to this recent research
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13545453

If nothing else, that suggests that the "shape" of fundamental particles IS a serious question in mainstream physics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
jumpjack said:
When was Podkletnov effect definitely discarded as not existent?
You're doing science backwards here. Theories aren't assumed to be correct, then discarded when determined to be incorrect, they are assumed to be incorrect until a sufficient body of evidence is built to show they may be correct. The Podkletnov effect has never had this. It has never been widely accepted to be existent.
But I'd like to know whene researches on this topic halted...
Similar to above, you're looking at that backwards. More to the point, though, it hasn't been halted. Your arvix paper, for example, contains citations from as late as 2005 (and I'm not sure what the date is for the article itself).
 
  • #4
russ_watters said:
You're doing science backwards here. Theories aren't assumed to be correct, then discarded when determined to be incorrect, they are assumed to be incorrect until a sufficient body of evidence is built to show they may be correct.
Actually I think you are doing it... I'v been teached "each theory is true until it's shown it's not".
But maybe we're talking about 2 different things: a theory created from existing ones, which ends showing that something "must" exist, and a theory created to explain observed phenomena.

I think Scala's equation are first type and Podkletnov experiments raised second type of theories, yet to be confirmed.


russ_watters said:
The Podkletnov effect[...] it hasn't been halted. Your arvix paper, for example, contains citations from as late as 2005 (and I'm not sure what the date is for the article itself).
So why it's forbidden to talk about it in this forum? (threads about it are closed due to "Podkletnov effect" not being existent).
 
  • #5
jumpjack said:
Actually I think you are doing it... I'v been teached "each theory is true until it's shown it's not".

Utter nonsense.

Here's my theory: a giant invisible unicorn runs on the planet causing earthquakes. Under your view, it is true until someone shows it is not. As you can never prove it is not it therefore must be true.

Load of rubbish. A theory is only as good as the evidence that supports it.

(You were 'taught', not 'teached'.)
So why it's forbidden to talk about it in this forum? (threads about it are closed due to "Podkletnov effect" not being existent).

Site rules are specific regarding mainstream science. If it isn't part of the mainstream it won't be tolerated. If, as per above there is nothing going for it, it won't be welcomed.
 
  • #6
You are welcome to post pretty much anything on this site provided you have evidence from peer-reviewed literature to discuss.

Saying "this hasn't been proved wrong" is ridiculous as Jared explains.
 
  • #7
JaredJames said:
Utter nonsense.

Here's my theory: a giant invisible unicorn runs on the planet causing earthquakes. Under your view, it is true until someone shows it is not. As you can never prove it is not it therefore must be true.
Are you sure you read my post? (Or maybe my poor English failed again...).
I just distinguished among theories originated by phenomena and theories originated by formulas.
Scala's theory originates from formulas and it requires verification of its validity. It does not say "as antigravity exist, these must be the formulas".

Einstein theories have been fully demonstrated some dozens of years AFTER he created them starting from existing formulas, for example, because no suitable technology existed yet to verify them (for example, gravitational lens effect created by huge, far galaxies).

Existence of exoplanets has been demonstrated as possible dozens (hundreds?) of years ago, but the first one was actually discovered in 1995.

Current theories say Dark Matter and Dark Energy must exist, but we do not yet have any evidence of them (although I must say I don't think they exist, I think our theory is just wrong: what is missing is some terms in our formulas, not "mysterious matter around").

And so on...
 
  • #8
jumpjack said:
Current theories say Dark Matter and Dark Energy must exist, but we do not yet have any evidence of them (although I must say I don't think they exist, I think our theory is just wrong: what is missing is some terms in our formulas, not "mysterious matter around").

We observe dark matter, it wasn't so long ago there was a thread here on a dark matter halo on a galaxy.

The rest is demonstrating a lack of understanding of scientific procedure. My laptop battery is about to die so I'll have to get back to this later.
 
  • #9
AlephZero said:
This gives an alternative hypoethesis to explain the observations.
http://jvr.freewebpage.org/TableOfContents/Volume5/Issue3/L1_AnExplanationOfTheAntigravityEffectObservedInPodkletnovsExperiments_061210A_L1_L4.pdf

you know this is a little dishonest, he is required to post links from http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com approved journals on the subject and skeptics can get away with publishing any old trash? even better the intellectual dishonesty of naming the paper 'Journal of Vectorial Relativity' ?

to th OP,
with that said, this paper is about the frame dragging effect(confirmed by gravity probe B) and it's causes. Not some hocus pocus anti grav research, and it's irritating to me that cracks have latched on so hard to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
christopherV said:
and it's irritating to me that cracks have latched on so hard to it.
Sorry, can't understand this sentence.

Apart from this, now I can't (anymore) why so much money is spent in research, if only useful "research" is looking for theories which describes what we've already seen. In other words... LHC was a big waste of money: nobody ever saw any Higgs' Boson, so why looking for it?!? It's just a theory.
 
  • #11
jumpjack said:
Apart from this, now I can't (anymore) why so much money is spent in research, if only useful "research" is looking for theories which describes what we've already seen. In other words... LHC was a big waste of money: nobody ever saw any Higgs' Boson, so why looking for it?!? It's just a theory.

What are you jabbering on about? This is non-sense.
 
  • #12
I forgot a verb:
"I can't (anymore) understand why etc. etc..."

Stay calm.
 
  • #13
jumpjack said:
I forgot a verb:
"I can't (anymore) understand why etc. etc..."

Stay calm.

That still doesn't clear things up. I stand by what I said previously regarding a lack of understanding.
 
  • #14
@ jumpjack

alright
1) cracks refer to crackpots :
"one given to eccentric or lunatic notions"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crackpot

2) in h what is the quadrupole moment approximation ?

if you can't answer #2 you don't know anything relevant to even begin to be able to understand the paper you posted.

since it's obvious you have a love for gravity research, i will toss out a flower for you.
kip thorne's class on gravitational waves and detection.
http://elmer.tapir.caltech.edu/ph237/

seriously, enjoy.
 
  • #15
Thread closed pending moderation. Till then, this topic should not be reopened anywhere else.

Zz.
 

1. What is the Podkletnov effect?

The Podkletnov effect is a controversial phenomenon proposed by Russian scientist Dr. Eugene Podkletnov in 1992. He claimed that a superconducting disc rotating at high speeds could create a repulsive force on nearby objects, including light particles and objects with mass.

2. Has the Podkletnov effect been scientifically proven?

No, the validity of the Podkletnov effect has not been scientifically proven. Many scientists have attempted to replicate Podkletnov's experiments, but have not been able to produce the same results. As a result, the effect has not been accepted by the scientific community.

3. When was the Podkletnov effect first studied?

The Podkletnov effect was first studied in 1992 when Dr. Eugene Podkletnov and his team published their findings in the journal Physica C. However, the effect gained attention in the early 2000s when NASA attempted to replicate the experiment.

4. Why was the Podkletnov effect considered controversial?

The Podkletnov effect was considered controversial due to the lack of scientific evidence supporting its existence. Many scientists have criticized the experimental setup and methodology used by Podkletnov, and no other research group has been able to replicate his results.

5. When was the Podkletnov effect definitely discarded as not existent?

The Podkletnov effect can be considered definitely discarded as not existent in the scientific community as early as the mid-2000s. Despite various attempts to replicate the experiment and the attention it gained from the media, the effect has not been accepted or recognized by the scientific community as a valid phenomenon.

Similar threads

Equivalence Principle: Paper on Internal Observer Effects
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
A Can an event horizon telescope observe quantum gravity effects
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
2K
I What would happen in following condition?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Recent papers on self-dual loop quantum black holes
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
28
Views
4K
I Is There a Preferred Axis in Cosmology and What Could Be Its Origin?
    • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
2K
I New interpretations of the Pioneer effect ?
    • Classical Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Other Free Physics & Astronomy Books: Explore the Cosmos
    • Science and Math Textbooks
2
Replies
62
Views
53K
I LQG dark matter candidate vs rival dark matter candidates
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Amplified frame-dragging effects due to superconductors?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
4K
A Addresses of Parallel Universes
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top