Antigravity and Discovery Channel's Credibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Icebreaker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Discovery
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the credibility of the Discovery Channel's documentaries on antigravity technologies, which many participants deem pseudoscientific. Concerns are raised about the portrayal of concepts like the Hutchison Effect and free energy devices as legitimate science, despite a lack of empirical support. Participants express skepticism about reports from reputable sources like NASA and Jane's Defense Weekly regarding anti-gravity research, questioning the scientific basis and potential motivations behind such claims. The conversation touches on the historical context of anti-gravity theories, including references to Russian scientist Podkletnov's work, which has not been reliably replicated. There is a consensus that while the idea of anti-gravity is intriguing, it fundamentally contradicts established laws of physics. The discussion also highlights the media's role in sensationalizing fringe science, with calls for more rigorous scientific scrutiny and skepticism towards claims lacking substantial evidence. Overall, the thread reflects a critical stance on the intersection of media, science, and public perception regarding controversial technologies.
Icebreaker
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
None of that stuff bothers me...at least most of what I saw is classic nonsense. What does bother me are a number of reports about anti-gravity technology from such sources as Jane's Defense Weekly, and NASA sponsored grants. We have had a number of posts about this in the past.
 
Perhaps NASA is desperate for a new form of propulsion.

Nevertheless, I thought Discovery Channel had at least some scientific credibility. The show as mentioned above broadcasted everything (and more) that I've listed above pretty much as "facts".

Must be a ratings thing.
 
The NASA thing was actually called a "gravity shield" that would reduce the weight of the shuttle for a few seconds during launch. No other context for the idea was provided in what I've seen.

I think any of these shows are much like a newspaper in that the source is everything. If a respected nuclear physicist comments on nuclear physics, the information is probably reliable. If it is Hutchinson explaining why his magic technology will only work with him in the room and no one else, well...
 
Here are a couple of examples:

29 July 2002

Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’

By Nick Cook, JDW Aerospace Consultant, London

Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be engineered into hardware.

As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeing’s Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed anti-gravity devices. So far, however, Boeing has fallen foul of Russian technology transfer controls (Moscow wants to stem the exodus of Russian high technology to the West).

100 of 873 words [End of non-subscriber extract.]

The full version of this article is accessible through our subscription services. Please refer to the box below for details.
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jdw/jdw020729_1_n.shtml


This is a paper from the Russian Scientist mentioned.
http://www.gravity-society.org/msu.htm

I don't know the state of this controversy. The last that I heard, no one could duplicate Podkletnov's results, but Podkletnov claimed to know what the problem was.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ivan Seeking said:
Here are a couple of examples:


http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jdw/jdw020729_1_n.shtml


This is a paper from the Russian Scientist mentioned.
http://www.gravity-society.org/msu.htm

I don't know the state of this controversy. The last that I heard, no one could duplicate Podkletnov's results, but Podkletnov claimed to know what the problem was.
.

I suppose this is the reason why stuff like this isn't in the Physics section, because it would be a classic quackery.

I've dealt with the Podkletnov effect since it first appeared in print in Physica B in the mid 90's. I still can't believe the amount of mileage this gets even after several institutions, even NASA, tried to duplicate the observation over a period of time and FAILED! Obviously, this means nothing to a whole lot of people.

Oh, and here's the kicker. His "theoretical" explanation on why this is seen only in high-Tc superconductor and NOT any other superconductor (he is linking it to the d-wave symmetry of the order parameter of the YBCO crystals) has been thoroughly dismissed!

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So there you go. Thanks ZapperZ.
 
Well, I can sleep sound tonight. Except for the headcrabs...
 
Apologies, but doesn't anti-gravity break just about every known law of physics? I see 'free energy' all over the place when you plug that into any CPT model. First kaons, now free energy... Chronos retreats to cave of reality...
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Chronos said:
Apologies, but doesn't anti-gravity break just about every known law of physics? I see 'free energy' all over the place when you plug that into any CPT model. First kaons, now free energy... Chronos retreats to cave of reality...

Dark Energy?
 
  • #11
This is a bunch of crock but oddly enough the device reminds me of something that I found in a book that contains a bunch of projects. In fact I am almost positive it's the same stupid devcie that attemps to make a mockery of science. I wonder if/does it actually work on any scientific principle. There has to be unless one well known publisher made one huge mistake.
This, and the Hutchison Effect, plus Joe Newman's free energy device is, obviously, fake. What startles me is that Discovery Channel is airing some documentaries (not mockumentaries) about them.
You know what. They are definiately going to be on the discovery channel again but this time on the Mythbusters. You know how angry the wacky free energy crowd got at them when they said there is no such thing as a free energy device. It's disturbing.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
I'd love to see the Mythbusters taking them on. Especially that "metal rod and aluminum foil" antigravity stuff. BUSTED.
 
  • #13
I'd love to see the Mythbusters taking them on. Especially that "metal rod and aluminum foil" antigravity stuff. BUSTED.
Nope sorry... The devices actually work. The science is crap. They work on a principle known as ion wind. It is a really cool science experiment and nothing more.
Perhaps NASA is desperate for a new form of propulsion.
Not that desperate.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ComnErr.html#ELECTROSTATIC%20ANTIGRAVITY Look at that. They even cite studies that debunked this as pseudoscience. I still want to make one though because it just looks cool.
This, and the Hutchison Effect, plus Joe Newman's free energy device is, obviously, fake. What startles me is that Discovery Channel is airing some documentaries (not mockumentaries) about them.
The same reason why the History Channel aired a serious documentary about the Bible Code despite the fact someone used the code itself to prove it was a fraud.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
I love Mythbusters. It's hilarious. I saw the free energy episode. A true classic. I could watch them try various other free energy devices for an entire season. Maybe mix in some anti gravity devices for variety.
 
  • #15
I liked the tree-cannon episode.

Dark Energy? :biggrin:
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
I liked the tree-cannon episode.

Dark Energy? :biggrin:

Dark energy is just a name for the cosmological constant, a perfectly reasonable part of Einstein's equations. It is not mumbo-jumbo.
 
  • #17
Chronos said:
I love Mythbusters. It's hilarious. I saw the free energy episode. A true classic. I could watch them try various other free energy devices for an entire season. Maybe mix in some anti gravity devices for variety.
Heheh... They even tried stealing energy using a giant coil of wire. Adam said," Well it's technically not free energy but it's free as in we are stealing it."
 
  • #19
That's the link that started the thread. :biggrin:
 
  • #20
Chronos said:
Apologies, but doesn't anti-gravity break just about every known law of physics? I see 'free energy' all over the place when you plug that into any CPT model. First kaons, now free energy... Chronos retreats to cave of reality...

Well, of course, in a realistic sense, if we wanted some kind of anti-gravity, we would perforce have to do something about the gravity existing between two masses, such as the Earth and a spaceship. In discussing antigravity, people say all sorts of things like shielding the spaceship from gravity (beats me how this would be done) or reducing the effects of gravity. Since gravity has its effect no matter what, the only logical course to pursue would be to reduce the actual amount of gravitational force between the two objects. Since conservation will apply, the only way to reduce the force of gravity is to convert that force to something else.

If there can be a Universal Field Theory among the four forces of the universe, what would happen if we converted the force of gravity to joules? Assume we have two masses, m1 and m2, with a force of gravity between them. Then we know the following:
1. The two masses are in motion, with respect to each other at a minimum.
2. E1 = c^2 * m1 / (1 – (v1 / c)^2)^½
3. E2 = c^2 * m2 / (1 – (v2 / c)^2)^½
4. F = (G * m1 * m2) / r^2 (force of gravity between them)

Solving equations 2 and 3 for m1 and m2, and then substituting those energy equivalents for m1 and m2 from equations 2 and 3 into equation 4, and then solving for energy, with algebraic simplification, yields

5. E1 * E2 = F * {(r^2*c^4) / [G * (1 – (v1 / c)^2)^½ * (1 – (v2 / c)^2)^½)]}

The denominator term is tiny and the numerator term is huge.

(Obviously, this is just the mathematical equivalent of
E1 * E2 = m1 * m2 * c^4, with no force-of-gravity term at all.)

However, if we read equation 5 like we read equation 2 or 3, we could read it, "When the force of gravity between two masses is converted into energy, we get a whopping huge number of joules."

Consequently, the idea that we could remove the force of gravity between the Earth and the spaceship is equivalent to saying we would destroy this solar system and maybe any life in the next one. So sad. :cry:
 
  • #21
selfAdjoint said:
Dark energy is just a name for the cosmological constant, a perfectly reasonable part of Einstein's equations. It is not mumbo-jumbo.
And there are even some good observational results that are consistent with DE (oh shock! oh horror! :eek: ) ...
 
  • #22
Nereid said:
And there are even some good observational results that are consistent with DE (oh shock! oh horror! :eek: ) ...

About six year ago I think, having just arrived back in the US from a job in Peru, I sat for a rest in the Atlanta airport. Next to me were a couple of gentlemen who were talking about the increasing rate of expansion - ala DE. It turned out that I had sat right in the middle of a large group of world class physicists who were returning from a - the - conference in which the acceleration of the cosmos was first publicly agreed upon. It was a very strange way to learn of a new force in nature; first hand, and from some of the premier people of physics. Needless to say, I didn't sleep anymore on that trip.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Ivan Seeking said:
About six year ago I think, having just arrived back in the US from a job in Peru, I sat for a rest in the Atlanta airport. Next to me were a couple of gentlemen who were talking about the increasing rate of expansion - ala DE. It turned out that I had sat right in the middle of a large group of world class physicists who were returning from a - the - conference in which the acceleration of the cosmos was first publicly agreed upon. It was a very strange way to learn of a new force in nature; first hand, and from some of the premier people of physics. Needless to say, I didn't sleep anymore on that trip.
Wow, what a blast!

You didn't catch any of the gentlemen's names, by any chance, did you?
 
  • #24
Ivan Seeking said:
The NASA thing was actually called a "gravity shield" that would reduce the weight of the shuttle for a few seconds during launch. No other context for the idea was provided in what I've seen.

I think any of these shows are much like a newspaper in that the source is everything. If a respected nuclear physicist comments on nuclear physics, the information is probably reliable. If it is Hutchinson explaining why his magic technology will only work with him in the room and no one else, well...

"Those who do not read the newspaper are ignorant. Those that do are misinformed." -Mark Twain
 
  • #25
Ivan Seeking said:
I liked the tree-cannon episode.

Dark Energy? :biggrin:


I too enjoyed the tree canon episode. :biggrin: After I finished laughing I wondered how my force it would take to do that. :rolleyes: I thought the needle in a hay stack portion was comical as well.
 
  • #26
Nereid said:
Wow, what a blast!

You didn't catch any of the gentlemen's names, by any chance, did you?

I did and even wrote a few down, but at the time I was traveling a great deal and I don't know what happened to the information. I do know that this was a pretty elite class of pholks :biggrin: , but not any names that I recognized. I do remember that people from the Univ. of Chicago, Fermi Lab, etc. were there.

As a really long shot, if this rings any bells.. one of the gentlemen, a physicist, was on a personal campaign of some sort to get the discovery channel and friends banned or something. I remember that he was was going from person to person asking for their support for a letter from the physics community; and making quite a fuss about it.
 
  • #27
Btw, when I told them that I was a graduate in physics, they treated me as if that meant something in that crowd! :biggrin: They were very nice.


Edit: Just out of curiosity I checked my passport. I looks like that was either March 18th, or the 24th, 1999, if that helps.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
If anybody, including Einstein, had the slightest idea or could explain -how- any of the electromagnetic/gravity forces actually did what they do--as opposed to simply being able to model and predict their effects--then there would be some basis to think that this absolutely can't be done.

But, it is no more whacky then building motors and generators based on observational models/theory without having the slightest clue as to -why- they work.

It is entirely, possible--just as with electromagnetic devices of all kind, that Boeing or somebody someday builds commercial anti-gravity devices, complete with formulae and dimensions and 'how to' instructions, without having the slightest clue as to the 'why?'

There may even be seemingly
impossible hurdles to cross, like, "I can't generate enough force in the Y direction by flapping my wings with my simple motor to lift my fat ass off the ground," which will some day be shattered by the application of the same force in the X direction on a lifting surface that will do the same thing easily, and later, by brute force devices that can.

Such as, a rocket; a helicopter actually does the same thing as a 'fixed wing' aircraft, in regards to leveraging the ability of lifting surfaces to create lift. But, none of that is 'something for nothing.'

The point is, the barrier to flight was not actually the once perceived barrier of applying insufficient direct force in the desired direction of travel('up'), and just because that problem was solved does not mean that man is suddenly free to violate any energy laws by lifting a plane to great heights and then recovering the energy of its fall and pocketing the supposed difference, except as a loss.

Hell, an airplane in total, or a rocket is an 'anti-gravity' device.
 
  • #29
Zlex said:
Hell, an airplane in total, or a rocket is an 'anti-gravity' device.
If you wish to use the word in that way, then the entire conversation is meaningless, isn't it? If an airplane is an anti-gravity device, then anti-gravity is, of course possible. So then it is useless to define "anti-gravity" in that way. Hence "anti-gravity" must be a device that generates a negative gravitational field. And since that is not something that can be done artificiall, yes, anti-gravity would violate the existing laws of physics.
 
  • #30
Russ, why do you and others keep talking about this violating the laws of physics when we think that dark energy may dominate at large distances?

Also, let's get real folks. When we say anti-gravity we mean a new force in nature that works oppositely to gravity - that produces a repulsive force in proportion to the mass of the object.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Hi,

I have read that in a 1928 or 1929 paper Einstein suggested that the magnetic vector potential might be a place to start looking for anti gravity effects.

juju
 
  • #32
Whether or not he mentioned this, I'm not sure, but Einstein proposed the Cosmological Constant (CC), which assumed the existence of anti-gravity. This was due to the belief of the time that the universe was relatively static. He later called the CC his greatest blunder. From there, Einstein was groping for a grand unified theory that would unite all of the forces of nature in one theory, which we still don't have today.

Ironically, referring to the CC as his greatest blunder may be one of his greatest blunders.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
Russ, why do you and others keep talking about this violating the laws of physics when we think that dark energy may dominate at large distances?
Not sure what you mean. There is a big, big difference between a hole in our knowledge (a prediction that didn't quite pan out) and something that contradicts already theories that already have experimental data backing them up that covers the situation in question. There is a reason anti-gravity and perpetual motion often share the same website. Just ask our friend aviator...
 
Last edited:
  • #34
It's really quite simple to negate the effects of gravity. All you need is a micro black hole. Hang on, I think I've got one in my pocket.

Recipe for rabbit stew; first catch a rabbit.
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
Not sure what you mean. There is a big, big difference between a hole in our knowledge (a prediction that didn't quite pan out) and something that contradicts already theories that already have experimental data backing them up that covers the situation in question. There is a reason anti-gravity and perpetual motion often share the same website. Just ask our friend aviator...

Dark energy is not a fringe topic. I don't get your point.
 
  • #36
Deja vu. What part of cowpie did I miss? This gets old after awhile.
 
  • #37
Ivan Seeking said:
Dark energy is not a fringe topic. I don't get your point.
Right, dark energy is not a fringe topic: anti-gravity, wrt this thread (ie, relating to perpetual motion, gravitational field generators, etc), is. You seemed to be trying to compare the two: they are not the same thing.
 
  • #38
Ivan Seeking said:
Also, let's get real folks. When we say anti-gravity we mean a new force in nature that works oppositely to gravity - that produces a repulsive force in proportion to the mass of the object.
All the matter that produces this repulsive force has already done so. Once in a while a guy will be digging a hole and an anti-gravity rock will fly out of it past his face, but good luck to him trying to prove it.
 
  • #39
Vis a vis the whole accelerating expansion of the universe malarky... the expansion is equal everywhere, isn't it. I mean, if you have a mile of empty space in one place and another mile in another, they will expand to equal sizes in equal amounts of time?

If there was some form of energy (dark energy) pushing galaxies away from us, would the rate at which a given galaxy was moved not depend on the mass of the galaxy, not the distance it is from us? I mean, if galaxy A weighs 1, galaxy B weighs 2 and galaxy C weighs 3 and they were equidistance on a straight line, if some force were pushing galaxies A and C away from B, you would expect C to recede more slowly, no? I'm sure the brains have got it covered, but I wonder what their thinking is.
 
  • #40
El Hombre Invisible said:
Vis a vis the whole accelerating expansion of the universe malarky... the expansion is equal everywhere, isn't it. I mean, if you have a mile of empty space in one place and another mile in another, they will expand to equal sizes in equal amounts of time?

If there was some form of energy (dark energy) pushing galaxies away from us, would the rate at which a given galaxy was moved not depend on the mass of the galaxy, not the distance it is from us? I mean, if galaxy A weighs 1, galaxy B weighs 2 and galaxy C weighs 3 and they were equidistance on a straight line, if some force were pushing galaxies A and C away from B, you would expect C to recede more slowly, no? I'm sure the brains have got it covered, but I wonder what their thinking is.

According to the standard account the expansion is uniform everywhere. But ther is a new theory that we are in the remains of a huge bubble expanded from early in the universe's age, and our expansion is less than the space outside the bubble.

The expansion is a feature of space, and calling it anti-gravity confuses this. So it only depends on space, not on the matter that happens to be around. The galaxies aren't themselves accelerated, it's the space between them that has accelerated expansion. In addition to its time dependence it has volume dependence, so a volume of 8 cubic light years would have 8 times the expansion in a given time as a volume of one cubic light year.
 
  • #41
Fair enough; no known mass dependency makes it pretty clear that this is not anti-gravity. But I still take issue with citing violations of the laws of physics since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. For all that we know, a complete theory may demand that anti-gravity exists; or even that this missing variable is partly why the famed TOE is so elusive.
 
  • #42
Ivan Seeking said:
But I still take issue with citing violations of the laws of physics since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. For all that we know, a complete theory may demand that anti-gravity exists; or even that this missing variable is partly why the famed TOE is so elusive.
Since the ToE must be compatible with GR, I still can't see why you have an issue with it.
 
  • #43
russ_watters said:
Since the ToE must be compatible with GR, I still can't see why you have an issue with it.

This assumes that we can measure and or would recognize the effects. Is it possible that the data to support this idea already exists somewhere but is interpreted incorrectly, or buried in the noise? And I guess that there is also the idea that it could only be produced artificially.

Edit for clarity.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
Oh yes, and could it be that this effect is buried within normal gravity, and what we see is the net of the two forces?

I don't mean to suggest that it's there. But I don't see how we can claim that it's not, with certainty.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Just out of curiosity I did a quick check, and there is plenty out there. For example:

...Antigravity and the impossibility arguments

Proposed by Morrison [7] in a celebrated paper, antigravity is known to violate the sacrosanct CPT symmetry, contradict the results of the Eötvös-Dicke-Panov experiments [10], exclude the existence of the long-lived component in the neutral kaon system in the presence of the Earth gravitational field [8], violate energy conservation and imply vacuum instability [7,11]. The arguments against antigravity then appear to be so compelling that it may seem presomptuous or even foolish to reconsider them
[12]. However, Nieto and Goldman have recently reviewed critically these arguments [13] and we refer the reader to their recent review for a thorough discussion and an historical perspective on these impossibility arguments (see also Ref. 14). Here, we will only insist on the points necessary to the following discussion and on those parts of Nieto and Goldman's review with which we disagree. Concerning the first two impossibility arguments, let it suffice to say that the CPT theorem has not generally been demonstrated on curved spacetime and that the ineluctability of a past singularity imposed by the theorems of Penrose and Hawking [15] make it doubtful that the CPT
theorem can ever be demonstrated without modification for gravitation 16,17].

Similarly, Goldman and Nieto have repeatedly stressed [18] that Schiff's argument on the Eötvös-Dicke-Panov experiments [10] is invalid because of his incorrect renormalization procedure. Attempts have been made to consider some adjustable vector interaction which, added to the tensor (and therefore always attractive) interaction dictated by general relativity, would lead to a violation of the equivalence principle applied to matter and antimatter. This arbitrariness is aesthetically objectionable, but Morrison's original antigravity [7] appears even worse : Goldman 3 and Nieto themselves reject the possibility of such a gross violation of the equivalence principle where antimatter would “fall up”, the total force on a static e+ e– pair, e.g.,being zero, since it would lead to a violation of energy conservation. We will come back later to the argument of energy non-conservation and first turn to Good's argument which appears to impose the most stringent constraint on antigravity.

http://www-dapnia.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?class=std&&file=Doc/Publications/Archives/spp-92-07.pdf .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
The probability of an antigravity particles is about the same an antiphoton particle--almost zero. How do I know? Just check for any real evidence. There is none.
 
  • #47
To get back to a point which was made near to the start of this thread: all of the antigravity nonsense on the internet is one thing, having clearly-crackpot ideas being discussed by NASA and peer-reviewed academic journals is quite another. For instance, a long review in Progress in Aerospace Sciences (Jan. 2003) treated classical crackpot anti-gravity claims as if they were of value. And I am talking about real codswallop here. One device (apparently being tested by BAE Systems, following advice from the review's author!) was a 'centrifugal drive'. You know, one of those daft machines that flails a couple of variable-length arms around and is supposed to 'swim' through outer space (just because it works on a shiny floor). And yes, I do know that Dr Wisdom (what an apt name) has recently suggested that a variable-geometry object might be able to exploit space-time curvature for propulsion purposes. But was the reviewer the sort of person who would have known that?
 
  • #48
Having been intimately involved in the design, development and deployment of vibratory mechanical equipment, I can assure you there is no free energy [i.e., anti- gravity] lurking between oscillations. I made numerous trips to customer facilities to fix the dang thing when it broke. I would not volunteer for a deep space mission that employed such a device for propulsion. Aside from being hugely inefficient, the spare parts payload would be prohibitively expensive.
 
  • #49
Chronos said:
Having been intimately involved in the design, development and deployment of vibratory mechanical equipment, I can assure you there is no free energy [i.e., anti- gravity] lurking between oscillations. I made numerous trips to customer facilities to fix the dang thing when it broke. I would not volunteer for a deep space mission that employed such a device for propulsion. Aside from being hugely inefficient, the spare parts payload would be prohibitively expensive.
Have you ever read about the Dean Drive? It got big press in the 1960s, and then suddenly dissappeared.

I was tempted once or twice to try and build one to see what it was all about. It isn't so complex that a mechanic couldn't juryrig one together in his garage. That's a lot of work just to prove exactly why it wouldn't work as claimed, though. It just occurred to me that it might be worth it to someone involved in the manufacture of industrial vibratory machines, since it might offer a new way to make things vibrate that has some sort of advantage in some particular application.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top