# Anti-gravity machine in your garage

1. Dec 9, 2004

### pelastration

Sure anti-gravity technology is possible in your garage. Bet for $1,000? and will send you the design. Anyone else interested. Russ?$1,000?

Edit by Ivan: Split from

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 14, 2004
2. Dec 9, 2004

### enigma

Staff Emeritus
Sure, I'll take that bet.

But it actually has to turn off or change gravity.

If the gravity is still there, but some other force is providing flight or levitation, it isn't an anti-gravity device, and I win the bet. If there were an anti-gravity device, the object subjected to it would go soaring off into space at speeds in the kilometers per second at least.

Oh, and you need to provide a mathematical model which explains what's going on.

Still want to take the bet, pelastration?

3. Dec 9, 2004

### pelastration

You didn't accepted the bet enigma. You put your own conditions.
For the others: The proof/experiment will be at room (garage) temperature.

4. Dec 9, 2004

### enigma

Staff Emeritus
Yep. That's what I thought.

Paraphrased:
I can prove that anti-gravity exists, but I don't have to prove it...

Wanna bet?!?

I'll counteroffer you, pelastration.

If you can prove it to my conditions, I'll pay you $10,000. Randi will pay you$1,000,000 as well. Get cracking!

5. Dec 9, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

Absolutely. Heck, I'd even accept some independent testing since surely, with my obvious bias, I can't be trusted (ok, well that, and I'm lazy)....

But I'm with enigma (though I'll be slighty more generous) - first you need to define precisely what you mean by "anti-gravity." Tell me precisely what this device will do. Some people define "anti-gravity" so loosely, throwing a baseball qualifies.

6. Dec 9, 2004

### pelastration

Is gravity a force? Yes. And you want me to cut that force without a force. With the universal scissors? Like I said ... your' cheap.

7. Dec 9, 2004

### pelastration

Nice Russ.
You can start: What is anti-gravity?

8. Dec 9, 2004

### pelastration

Take any tool in your garage - say 3 kilo's - and the anti-gravity device that you will build yourself will lift the tool up to one meter. Is that height enough for you?
The anti-gravity device with not have moving parts.
Fair?

9. Dec 9, 2004

### enigma

Staff Emeritus
Don't you see that if it isn't turning off the gravity, it isn't "anti-gravity"?

It's electrostatic repulsion... or ionic propulsion... or something else entirely?

10. Dec 9, 2004

### pelastration

Are you a dreamer?
Do you really think you can cut off gravity from an object?
If your really think that you can cut of the most fundamental force you are creating enigma's for yourself. Maybe in math you can do that but not in physical reality.

The word "anti" means "counter".

My bet is still open. Randi can come and check.

What about keeping that 3 kilo's for 3 hours on 1 meter height above the garage floor?

11. Dec 9, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

A model rocket engine has no moving parts and can lift 10 pounds.
enigma already gave a definition that looks good to me - but you are the one making the claim, so you explain what you are claiming.

This is so typical of this subject: there is no theory, no evidence, no experiment, no demonstrations, just word games.
A magnet can do it forever. So what?

12. Dec 10, 2004

### enigma

Staff Emeritus
pph. I can build a hovercraft in my garage. Big whoop. Or a model airplane. Even bigger whoop. or maybe I'll hang one magnet from another. Biggest whoop.

It's intellectually dishonest in the extreme to call any of them "anti-gravity" devices.

How did this thread get turned from ZPE into anti-gravity?

13. Dec 10, 2004

### Chronos

conditions: anti-gravity device must move a 3 Kg mass a distance of no less than 10 meters vertical [wrt earth's center of gravity and starting position] using no more than 50% of the input energy predicted by the formula W = f x d.

14. Dec 10, 2004

### juju

http://americanantigravity.com/secrets-article.shtml [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
15. Dec 10, 2004

### Chronos

So the Americanantigravity source admits there is no science behind the fantasy of anti-gravity propulsion [which can be translated into the equivalent of free energy - moving a mass possessing body without paying the inertial dues]. What a shocking revelation. I take it there are no takers to my conditions.

Last edited: Dec 11, 2004
16. Dec 12, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
I see the term "antigravity" used to describe nearly any lifting force.

One strange note: A few years ago I saw that a small grant was issued - I think a few hundred thousand dollars - to explore some kind of "gravity shield" that would reduce the weight of the shuttle by a percent or two during the first few seconds of a launch. I know the grant was issued but I have no idea what that was all about. It seems that even some technical sources are using this language incorrectly.

17. Dec 12, 2004

### brewnog

I've got a fantastic anti gravity device in my workshop.

It's called a table. That counts, right? Can I have my money now?

18. Dec 12, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
From I can see, that counts.

19. Dec 13, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

I heard about that as well, but I don't see how that is misusing the term: a gravity "shield" would certainly qualify as acting against gravity itself.

20. Dec 13, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
I was assuming that no such "shield" exists, or even could in principle AFAWK, and it was just another misuse of the terminology.

21. Dec 13, 2004

### TheAntiRelative

I've also heard much about gravity shielding and was wondering if it was unmitigated crankery or somewhat truthful.

Where I first heard about a variation in gravity was in studying how and why global positioning satellites must not only keep time a little differently (Gravitational relativity calculations and no other relativistic effects) But also have to be updated regularly anyway.

I read that not only are the clocks somewhat capable of drift but actual fluctuations in the earths gravity play a small part in making the clocks go off slightly. I've read it in a few places as I was looking at other topics but is it just repeated falsehood?

Additionally, the Allais Effect points to a possible gravitation shielding effect during eclipses.

Some of the credible resources point to a change in air pressure but there are some that disprove that theory as well. Apparently there was still enough question as of 1999 that NASA scientists and scientists from around the world decided that it needed to be studied further.

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
22. Dec 13, 2004

Staff Emeritus
You are right that the earth's gravity, through general relativity effects, retards the time deep in its field (like on the surface) relative to higher up (like in orbit). This is one of the relativity effects on the GPS clocks and it makes the clocks run fast relative to those on the surface. The other effect is from special relativity; the clocks in the satellites are moving fast relative to the ground, and so those clocks would have a tendency to run slow compared to ground clocks. You see that the two effects are in opposite directions and it's a careful calculation to figure out the net effect between them. It has been calculated though - the grav efffect is bigger - and the clocks have been adjusted accordingly. It all works too; if it didn't the GPS locating system wouldn't be as accurate as it is.

23. Dec 13, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

No, from what I understand, NASA really was researching a gravity shield. As we know, the government does sometimes invest money in crackpottery.

24. Dec 13, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Do you have any idea what motivated the interest?

25. Dec 14, 2004

### Chronos

Well, I try to resist conspiracy theories, but it is hard to resist the notion that certain countries [e.g., USA] may exaggerate how much money they spend on crackpot science to lure others [e.g., Russians] into wasting resources on bad science.